Southwest Airlines policy

[DWRolfe]

Read about this hateful policy online this morning....

Southwest Airlines will start charging larger passengers for two seats on its 2,800 daily flights starting June 26. The airline, which operates out of 58 U.S. cities and is the largest carrier at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, will begin charging "persons of size" for two seats if they think they may not fit comfortably in one.
Ticket agents will not have weight and height requirements to follow when determining who can comfortably fit into one seat or who needs to purchase another ticket, said Southwest spokeswoman Christine Turneabe-Connelly.
"It is, unfortunately, a judgment call," she said.
Miriam Berg, president of the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination, questioned agents' ability to make the correct assessment.
"Do they have scales to weigh people? Do they have tape measures to measure a person's girth?" she asked.
Southwest has always asked large passengers to purchase two tickets if they would have difficulty fitting into one seat, and ticket agents used to have some flexibility when accommodating these passengers, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
But as of June 26, the airline will ask large passengers "whether the flight is full or not, to purchase an additional seat," she said.
If the flight isn't full, the passenger may request a refund after the flight, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
"For an airline to charge people double based on the person's size is pure discrimination," Miss Berg said. "Do they discriminate the same way against basketball players who are 6 foot 5 inches and don't fit in their seats?"
All people who are too large to fit in one seat, not just the obese, are included in the Southwest policy, Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
The industry does not have a general policy on airlines' accommodation of large passengers, said Diana Cronan, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, which represents the major carriers. However, some carriers charge large passengers extra.
Chicago-based United Airlines, for example, charges larger passengers double if they cannot comfortably fit in one seat, said United spokesman Joe Hopkins.
Miss Berg said she has had more complaints from large travelers about Southwest, which is the fourth-largest domestic airline based on passenger numbers, than any other airline.
"They think they can get away with it because they think discriminating against people on the basis of weight will be acceptable to most of the population," she said.
She blames the airlines for making seats too small to accommodate larger Americans.
"The fact is that Americans are getting larger," she said. "This is what the population looks like, and an airline has an obligation to make its seat fit the population."
The actual trend in size is hard to pin down. In 1998, the government's body-mass index was changed, resulting in 30 million Americans going from government-approved to overweight or obese overnight.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that, under the new standards, 61 percent of Americans were overweight or obese in 1999. The percentage of obese Americans nearly doubled from about 15 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 1999.
The policy change at Southwest was prompted by studies of its service, the company says. The airline found that many large passengers did not purchase two tickets and that other customers often complained when their space was encroached upon.
"We learned some important lessons from that," Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said.
Advocacy organizations such as Miss Berg's have long opposed airlines charging large passengers extra.
The National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance offers large passengers tips on its Web site for dealing with airlines but acknowledges that passengers often encounter stumbling blocks.
"Your needs deserve to be met, but it may be up to you to remind them of this simple fact," the site reads. "Remember that you have a right to accessible transportation."
Mrs. Turneabe-Connelly said Southwest ticket agents are trained not only to make good judgment calls on who needs to pay for an extra seat but also to be discreet when confronting passengers.
"We don't want the customer to be embarrassed or offended in any way," she said.
But it's important that all passengers be comfortable on Southwest flights, she said. "If we have a full flight and there's somebody sitting next to [a larger passenger], the other customer becomes upset."

Donald :mad:

[Lessara]

I guess that means 61% of Americans aren't using Southwest Airlines...

That or we can throw away our scales because to find out if we are "thin enough" all we do is ask Southwest, "Am I one ticket or two?" :D

[lngirl]

I just want to blow off a little steam. Last night I heard on the news that Southwest airlines will be charging double for people of size. So what I want to know is what is the break point. And if you're of a "small size" do you get a discount. I fly with them a lot and many time the plane has been full and they've never had to not fill every seat because I'm too big. And now that I'm losing weight, at what point would I be ok? Some folks are big at 200 lbs and some people aren't. And, I buy tickets on line, are they going to ask my weight when I order the tickets, or will they wait till I'm in line to load and then want a full fare when my original ticket was a discount. If it's a problem with fuel then everyone should be weigh as we board and when you reach the load limit that's it. I don't like that a ticket agent arbitrarily picks and chooses. Sorry but this just fries my buns :mad:

[Cinderella]

I have clicked on this post three times....I keep reading it...and reading it...

Can a company really do this without being sued? I wonder who came up with this sick idea, does he still have a job?

Well..I guess this will be the next airline to go bankrupt. Others are pulling seats out...putting them farther apart, making more leg room..etc..whatever they can do to accomidate everyone more comfortably...they must be rolling on the floor over this one..or laughing..all the way to the bank.

cin

[VictoriaT]

I will never fly southwest airlines again--even after I lose my weight....
I cant see how they get away with that....it is pure discrimination. That is such an embarrassment. :thdown:

[Natrushka]

We had a case like this in Canada last year. You might find the outcome interesting :)

http://cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/travel/fairflying/index.html

Nat

[OKwoer]

I'm sitting here with my bottom jaw resting on the floor as I type. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME?!?!?! Don, I read your full account and I am shocked. I just can't believe that an airline would come to the conclusion that this would be in the best interest of the business. I also can't believe that they would risk a suit under the ADA. To me this is no different than if someone were to charge extra for wheelchair bound individuals to use an elevator. I would suspect that if someone were to sue and win on this issue, the airlines would be required to create special seating in planes to provide "equal access" for those of us with large frames.

I myself avoid flying if at all possible because I AM so sensitive about infringing on other peoples space. I always accomodate others and feel bad that I do require special treatment. But to suggest that I must pay double...I just can't fathom that standing up to a legal challenge.

Well...I've got to tell you, I've just lost my cherub like demeanor for the day.

[tamarian]

I merged both thread into one, hope not much confusion would result :)

Some thoughts:

1. Would they charge bodybuilder with huge shoulders more?

2. Tall people who need to sit at the front for more leg room, would they be charged double?

3. Would petite women get a 50% discount?

4. Would they start charging by area, rather than by the seat. Otherwise, they can make the seats so tiny, and charge everyone double the price, excpet for children.....

Wa'il

[Talon]

Too Big, Two Seats (http://www.channelcincinnati.com/sh/travelgetaways/stories/travel-headlines-151939020020619-060608.html)

[agonycat]

I think this is totally insane.

Let's play the what if game shall we?

WHAT IF, there were only 3 seats left on a plane and none of those seats were together. Would the "over sized" person still be charged for two seats and everyone on the plane be asked to move to make room?

God how embarrassing would that be!

Good way to go bankrupt for sure.

[OKwoer]

Well, I did a little research on the subject and it seems that there is both good and bad news for us big folk.

The good news is that while SW Airlines does in fact reserve the right to enforce this policy, in practice it has rarely been done.

The bad news is that it has already held up to a legal challenge. A judge ruled that SWA was acting within legal standards and that the burden of proof necessary for a discrimination claim had not been met. Of interest to me was that the case was not argued as a violation of ADA. I was under the assumption that obesity was treated as a disability and therefore equal access rules applied. Anyone know anything about ADA and the obese?

[lngirl]

Thanks for combining the threads, I hadn't seen this one. I'm feeling very insecure right now. I am flying from Calif to Winnipeg next week, and am wondering if Canada Airlines will want more money once they see me. I know it's not comfortable to sit next to a large person, but it's also not comfortable to sit next to someone holding a crying child for hours. Or someone who goes to the bathroom every 5 minutes and has to climb all over everyone. Most people are very gracious and I've never had a problem in the past flying so it is really bugging me. It's always hard wondering if you're going to fit in the seats, chairs, in whatever venue be it a concert, restaurant, movie etc. I hate feeling insecure about this crap. :mad:

[Tari]

Having flown Southwest before, I would suggest that NOBODY could possibly be comfortable in their seats--no matter what their weight.

Seriously, though, this is just awful. I'll never fly them again and am writing them to tell them so. I'm also talking to our the people who make the travel decisions for our company and will encourge them to boycott Southwest.

[tamarian]

Airlines Slammed on Large Passengers
Wed Jun 19, 8:11 PM ET

By DAVID KOENIG, AP Business Writer

DALLAS (AP) - Southwest Airlines ( news - web sites) is under fire for its policy of charging overweight passengers for two tickets if they spill over into their neighbor's seat.

The airline says it is trying to provide a comfortable flight for travelers seated next to large passengers.

"We sell seats, and if you consume more than one seat, you have to buy more than one seat," said Beth Harbin, a Southwest spokeswoman.

Advocates for the obese are outraged.

"It's just discriminatory and it's mean-spirited," said Morgan Downey, executive director of the American Obesity Association. "This is singling out a group that's been very heavily stigmatized rather than making some accommodations in their cabins."

Downey, whose group has not received specific complaints about the airline's policy, says Southwest and other carriers should make wider seats because Americans are getting larger; the Centers for Disease Control estimates that more than one-fourth of Americans are obese.

Southwest, whose seats are 18 inches wide, does not weigh or measure passengers. Ticket agents can "make a judgment call" and ask an obese person whether he or she usually takes up more than one seat, Harbin said. If the answer is yes, the person is asked to buy two seats.

The second seat costs the same as the original fare, unless the passenger is a walkup customer paying the highest price. In that case, the second ticket is discounted, Harbin said. The passenger can get a refund later if the flight is not sold out, the airline spokeswoman said.

Southwest said there is nothing new in its handling of obese passengers. Harbin said the carrier has followed the same policy since 1980, although employees were reminded of the policy as the carrier began switching this week to a new automated boarding pass instead of its old, familiar plastic passes.

Several other carriers have similar policies, including Houston-based Continental and Fort Worth-based American, which requires purchase of a second seat for customers who "protrude extensively into an adjacent seat." Northwest Airlines ( news - web sites) allows the passenger to buy the second seat at the same price paid for the first seat rather than a more expensive last-minute rate.

"That's a compromise, and we're coming quite a ways with that. It's a very difficult issue," said Northwest spokesman Kurt Ebenhoch.

Delta does not require obese passengers to buy a second ticket and tries to handle complaints by moving passengers to empty seats or other flights, a spokeswoman said. United also does not require purchase of a second ticket, a spokesman said.

Southwest said its double-ticket policy on obese passengers was prompted by complaints from other travelers. Harbin, the airline spokeswoman, said nine out of 10 letters to customer service come from passengers who were crowded by large neighbors.

The airlines said they don't know how many times an obese passenger is required to buy two tickets, but they consider it rare.

Downey said his group was considering legal action or asking Congress to prohibit the two-ticket policy.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020620/ap_on_bi_ge/airlines_big_passengers_2

[szar]

I am absolutely beside myself (would I need to buy an extra seat for that?). It seems that the overweight are the last vestage of those who it is alright to discriminate against. I hope that one of the advocacy groups pushes the issue....

Mark

[lissdawn]

This is the 4th time I have read this thread now. I am just SICKENED by this! I am from Canada, so fortunately, I don't have the amazing privilege of being in the presence of this bureaucratic airline on a regular basis, but I'd like to send them a letter nonetheless. As a matter of fact, if someone would be so kind as to get the contact info and post it here, I think we should all send them a letter. Maybe even a petition boycotting the airline. I, for one, will be glad to be the first one to sign it. This is as a result of their complaints? PLEASE. What about the other complaints they get? What about the screaming children? What's about the drunks who get rowdy and out of control? I'd be interested to know the statistics (since they obviously keep track of them) on the number of complaints on these! And yet why do those issues continue? Because of PROFIT, BABY. It's all about the benjamins. Oh, I am FIRED UP. I really don’t know what makes me angrier…the airline that did this, or the ignorant judge that gave them PERMISSION to do this! This has absolutely nothing to do with pleasing their customers and handling complaints. This is about a group of suits sitting in a boardroom, going over their last quarter profit/loss statements, seeing the numbers dropping more and more, and brainstorming on ways that they can make their outdated, archaic, stone-age ideas useful to bring in the money. Coincidence that this so-called “policy” that has been around since 1983, and it is only now being reiterated to employees that such a policy exists? The least they could do is be honest about their reasons for the decision. Let’s just say what it really is. “Let’s exploit the fact that so many Americans are obese, and our profits are tanking at unbelievable rates, so let’s up the ante shall we? Let’s get that extra X number of seats a day in profit”…I can see the drool on their faces…Taking X number of passengers a day, multiplied by the national “average” of obese people…even if they only did it to 1 passenger every 5 flights, I’d be interested to know what kind of profit that would bring in. Are they going to start some sort of incentive for their employees? Up-selling to us larger people? “Ok kids, at every airport, whoever sells the MOST double seating this month gets a $50 bonus!” WHOO HOOOO!

[Mae West]

Hi all,

Boy, it's been a long time since I posted here, although I've been lurking occasionally. But this subject has me fired up. I just finished writing my letter to Southwest Airlines and I feel a little better, but not much.
I copied and pasted the following information from the Southwest.com website:

To Contact Us by Mail:
Southwest Airlines
Customer Relations
P.O. Box 36647 - 1CR
Dallas, Texas 75235-1647

Why Southwest Doesn't Accept E-Mail:

"Call us traditional, but we elect to steer clear of the chat-style, respond-on-demand, quick, casual format and focus on meaningful customer dialogue."

"This is not because we don't care. It's because that style counters our 30 plus year commitment to Customer Service."

"Our Customers deserve accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers, and it takes time to research, investigate, and compose a real business letter. We answer every letter we receive in the order it arrives, and we streamline in order to keep our costs low, our People productive, our operating efficiency high, and our responses warm and personal."

HA! I hope Southwest continues to keep it's responses warm and personal as it composes "real business letter" replies to 171,654,000 offended Americans!

I think, since over 61% of all Americans are right now secretly worrying about whether they will be humiliated, embarrassed, and charged an unfair fee of hundreds of dollars if they attempt to board a Southwest plane, "overcrowding" will definitely not be Southwest's problem in the future!

Mae West

"He's so crooked he uses a cork screw for a ruler." The Other Mae West
"I never diet. The only carrots I'm interested in are the number of carots in a diamond." Also by The Other Mae West.

[fiona]

Over the years I've seen things starting in America and slowwwwwly making their way to Britain. For some years now I've been chaffing against a new trend of hard-line inhuman employer. But this just takes the biscuit.

Any complaints we have against our airlines pale into insignificance at this latest form of Prejudice.

I have no doubt Southwest is doing it for profit. Customers have a choice too : If I had my way I would lobby for the "thin people" to join forces with the Persons of Size" and put them out of business.

{....focus on meaningful customer dialogue.....} I expect their idea of meaningful customer dialogue is pay up or shut up.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

:rheart: :angel: to all Persons of Size :rheart: :angel:
Take care,

[Shark01]

I wrote them a letter this morning, and inquired about a particular situation when our family flies:

"My wife is also a large person, and we fly with our two year old to Grandmother’s house once a year. We fit very comfortably in a row of 3 seats. Now if we are charged for 5 seats, where are our two other seats located? Are they on the other side of the aisle? In front, or behind us? Are they 15 rows toward the front? Do I have the right to tell someone else to not sit in the window or aisle seat in the next row because we paid for them? It seems I do since I bought the seats. How are you going to enforce my right to protect my seats?"

No way this policy stands up in court and I hope they are hurt SEVERELY by this stupid action.

I mean, where does this stop? People on other forums are advocating fat people buy additional seating in movie theaters, concerts, and sporting events :daze:

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Shark01
My wife is also a large person, and we fly with our two year old to Grandmother?s house once a year. We fit very comfortably in a row of 3 seats. Now if we are charged for 5 seats, where are our two other seats located?

Good one :)

Wa'il

[nopie]

"They think they can get away with it because they think
discriminating against people on the basis of weight will be
acceptable to most of the population,"

Unfortunately, I think this policy will be acceptable to most people. The hate of fat people that I have heard the last two days is incredible. People who would not speak this way about terrorists or criminals feel completely free to say the most hateful things about us.
I believe that the same very negative attitude that was slowly promoted by the government and others against smoking and then smokers, is now in play here.
Yes, smoking is bad for you and people said second hand smoking was dangerous, that smoke was invading their space. We all know that being fat is not healthy and the last two days, I have heard people say that fat people invaded their space.
I used to smoke and thoroughly enjoyed it - until "they" made me feel like some terrible criminal for smoking. There was no place left to smoke. It was socially unacceptable. I felt like a pariah. I quit four years ago and I'm glad I did - but I will never be critical of people who do smoke.
There has been more criticism of smokers than there has been of people who drink and drive.
Now it is open season on fat people.
Just as "they" made people feel free to be hateful and complain about smokers, out law smoking, people will now feel free to complain and openly despise us and maybe ultimately limit where we are allowed to go and what we are allowed to eat.
This is an agenda. Demonize and make it acceptable to criticise a group. Soon you can make life so intolerable for people in that group, that they will change. If they will not change, it will be perfectly acceptable to defile them and make laws against them.
To very loosely paraphrase the old saying: I didn't complain when they came after smokers, or when they came after this group or that group, and pretty soon they came after me.

[Shark01]

I don't think comparing this action by SWA to smoking is prudent. Second hand smoke kills innocent people. Cigarette butts flying out of cars degrades our environment. And the smell of cigarette smoke is horrible. Unless I jumped off a building, I don't think my weight causes anyone else harm. But this has brought out the worst in people. Even "friends" around the office are applauding this policy (taking special note to exclude me however :rolleyes: ). It's time the obese became a protected legislative class :thup:

[LC_Dave]

What hasn't been brought up, especially not by the media is - Why don't they make the seats bigger ?

The seats in airlines are absolutely ridiculous. Even if I lost a tonne of weight I still could not fit in them!

I have broad shoulders and when they park me in an aisle seat - I get banged by the staff walking up and down. :(

The last time I was in air I thought I might go to the toilet. Bugger me! I would have to be 5 foot tall to sit down!

This brings up another issue. Chairs with arms! They are a big no-no for me at the moment. There are so many cafe's that have them! The funny thing is that they loose business. When I'm out with people I say, 'Nah chairs are too small' and we move to the next cafe and spend our money. They don't just loose this big man's business, but the loose the business of the people I'm with!

Dave

[OKwoer]

Yep Dave...I here exactly what you're saying. I think for many a resturaunt, it is not so much an act of discrimination, but just ignorance. When the owner orders chairs, I don't think he/she thinks about people not being able to fit in them...rather I believe that he/she's probably thinking "what's the nicest looking chair that I can afford to purchase?" Still, as you say, that ignorance does cost them customers.

I do hope that someone sues Southwest under the American's with Disabilities Act. If the court were to rule in our favor, all airlines would be required to make provisions giving us equal access without paying more. Wider seats for everyone!!!!!!

[bellabubba]

Ok..no one jump down my throat here..BUT..if you need two seats..you are taking up the space of a seat that someone else could be paying for..unfortunately it IS a business..and they are in it for money and nothing else..not saying I agree..just trying to be realistic..

Also this has been a policy for years and years with all airlines if you look into it..and it has been inforced before..southwest obviously had an icident which brought this forward...

I do disagree that is up to the discretion of the tellers though..that's just plain stupid..if they are going to do it they should do it by weight/height and so on..period.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by bellabubba
Ok..no one jump down my throat here..BUT..if you need two seats..you are taking up the space of a seat that someone else could be paying for..unfortunately it IS a business..and they are in it for money and nothing else..not saying I agree..just trying to be realistic..

The problem is, what is a reasonable size for a seat? And who get's to decide the reasonable size for others.

Let's say you can fit in seat that's 15" wide, would you be willing to pay for two seats when their next design has seats that are 14" wide? I don't think so....

Wa'il

[OKwoer]

I did a little more research. In California, they actually have a law that states that airlines must allow persons who have seeing eye dogs to have their dogs accompany them on the plane. It also states that they can not be charged an additional fare.

I also found the statements for special accomodations on several air carriers' websites (Interestingly, SWA does not have ANY information about accomodating special needs travelers on its website) that offer additional seating at no charge for persons traveling with a seeing eye dog.

You know...I guess if Airlines can do this, then theatres would have the same right. I guess if another person would be uncomfortable sitting next to me in a theatre, then the theatre can charge me for that empty seat. I wonder if buildings with elevators might start charging fat people because they can't fit as many people on at a time? Of course Disney World will have to charge me double because I take up two spaces on the monorail. And resturaunts...they'll have to charge me double for my meal because after all, if I wasn't so fat I could have invited another person to share the booth. I mean it IS a business...they have the right....RIGHT!?!?!?!?

[bellabubba]

I guess i'm the only one with this opinion..but I make a point to get the emergency seats..two side by side..so i am not bothering anyone but my hubby by squishing over into his seat..

I caused myself to be this size..no one else did..it's my problem not anyone elses...and i do what i can to accomodate to other people..

I barely fit in a normal seat..if i was any bigger and needed two seats..i would pay for two or i wouldnt' fly...even at this point i would not just buy a normal ticket..how embaressing to have to plunk my fat body down between two normal sized people who are crammed already..now I'm jammed between them..i would never..that wouldnt be fair to them..and it would be humiliating to me...

Sorry..i know everyone is going to freak..but that's my opinion

[tamarian]

Originally posted by bellabubba

Sorry..i know everyone is going to freak..but that's my opinion

That's allright, and we're glad you shared it with us.

However, it isn't that simple, nor should it be judged on purely personal situations. For example, if you really think it's your "fault" that yoiu need extra room, what if you lose a lot of weight, but you still need more space? Some of us, predominantly women, who fit the "pear shape" would still need more hip room, even at their ideal weight. Some of us, predominantly men, have broad shoulder that will protrude into the next seat.

Notice the policy didn't target men with broad shoulders, nor tall people, it is explicitly for wide-hipped fat individuals. There are many obese people, "apple-shaped", who would be comfortable in regular seats, but will be charged nonetheless, because they are obese in the eyes of some airline employees, but not in the eyes of others. You will be at the mercy of who over looks you up and down to check how they should treat you.

So, even if you think it's your "fault" -- which is beside the point, and may need another thread to discuss -- many will be wider than the 15" or 16" yard-stick due to no fault of their own.

In addition, many are obese due to prescribed hormon and other medications, would you support charging them extra? If other disabilities aren't charged for the same?

Wa'il

[tamarian]

Originally posted by OKwoer
I also found the statements for special accomodations on several air carriers' websites (Interestingly, SWA does not have ANY information about accomodating special needs travelers on its website) that offer additional seating at no charge for persons traveling with a seeing eye dog.


The news release mentioned Delta and United as the ones who don't charge, nore have a policy to charge based on discretion.


And resturaunts...they'll have to charge me double for my meal because after all, if I wasn't so fat I could have invited another person to share the booth. I mean it IS a business...they have the right....RIGHT!?!?!?!?

I agree, it's the same logic.

Wa'il

[lngirl]

I understand the point about business is business. I guess the part of this whole thing that really gets me going is that it is up to the agent to decide. If they had a published rule like some helicopter businesses do that anyone over a certain weight must pay a premium that would make more sense. But they don't so its an arbitary decision based on someones look and to me that is discrimination. Right?

[Mae West]

I've decided this SWA policy will never affect me, because I've decided never to fly SWA again. There are other travel options, and to my knowledge, train and bus companies don't have this kind of policy... nor do car rental agencies.
I am simply too shy and sensitive about my size (even when I am close to my goal) to even think about discussing it with a stranger in the middle of a public airport... especially a stranger who may suddenly decide to insist that I have to pay hundreds of dollars more than everyone else because he/she happens to think I am too fat.
I would hitchhike before I would put myself in that situation.
SWA posted this new information on their website. I thought you might be interested:

"A Message From Southwest Airlines"

"In the past 48 hours, Southwest Airlines has heard from many people regarding ongoing "news" stories about our policy that requires Customers who occupy two seats to purchase both seats. We have been truly disheartened by the inaccurate reports and the hurt and disappointment this issue has caused so many of you. We are further saddened that the sensationalism of this issue has encouraged many Americans to "take sides" or "poke fun" over a subject that we realize is very real and often uncomfortable to many people. Unfortunately, our attempt to "set the record straight" has continued to be incorrectly reported. As a result, we want to take the opportunity to respond to your questions and concerns regarding what has turned into one of the "hottest" topics during the past couple of days in a forum that hopefully will reach the most people. We value, want, and need your business, and we consider it a privilege each time you call upon our Company to serve you."

Q: "Is this a new policy?"

A: "No. Southwest has had a policy in place since 1980 that requires a Customer to purchase the number of seats he/she occupies. This is a policy that most other airlines also have."

Q: "If the policy is not new, why does it go into effect on June 26 as stated in the news?"

A: "This policy doesn’t go into effect on June 26 (it has been in effect since 1980). The only significance to the June 26 date is that is the date we expect to be fully operational systemwide with our new checkin and boarding process. As you may have heard, Southwest is doing away with our plastic boarding passes and implementing a new checkin and boarding process that involves an electronically issued paper boarding pass. We recently began training our Employees on this new process, which allows us the capability to note on the boarding pass itself that a Customer has purchased an additional seat (whether that additional seat is needed for a large Customer, an infant traveling in a child restraint device, a musical instrument, or other items). During that training, we issued an internal document reminding our Agents of our longtime existing policy of requiring a Customer to purchase a second seat if that Customer needed a second seat for his/her safety and comfort on the aircraft. We didn’t issue a press release—someone in the media obtained a copy of the memo from one of our Employees. In fact, the only "new" procedure involving this "old" policy is that our Agents will give the Customer a document that advises of our refund policy and lists a phone number and address the Customer can contact to apply for a refund."

Q: "Why are you asking your Employees to request that a large Customer purchase an additional seat?"

A: "Our entire reason for sending our Employees the reminder is because we are expecting fuller flights this summer. When our aircraft are booked to capacity, and one Customer is occupying more than one seat, another Customer is left without the seat he/she purchased. This ultimately costs us money in denied boarding compensation and inconveniences the Customer who has been "left behind." It is certainly not safe, comfortable, or fair for a person who has purchased a ticket to be left with only a portion of a seat or no seat), nor should anyone be expected to occupy less than an entire seat. Further, it’s not safe, comfortable, or fair for the Customer who is occupying more than one seat to be placed in the situation of having someone crowded in a portion of a seat."

Q: "How much will one have to pay for the additional seat?"

A: "If the Customer is holding an advance purchase, discounted fare, the second seat will be sold at the same discounted fare. If the Customer has purchased one of our low, unrestricted full fares, the second seat will be sold at the discounted Child’s Fare."

Q: "When do I qualify to receive a refund for the additional seat purchase?"

A: "As long as the flight does not oversell (having more Customers waiting to board an aircraft than seats on the aircraft), we will refund the additional seat purchase. All Customers who have purchased an additional seat will receive a document that advises them to contact our Customer Relations Department after travel to request a refund for the additional seat purchased. In addition, if there is a possibility that the flight will oversell, the Customer will be given the option to purchase a second seat and travel on a less full flight to his/her destination without paying a penalty-fee, regardless of the fare paid. And, unlike Customers who must purchase an additional seat to place a musical item, a child restraint device for an infant, etc. and who have other "options" such as holding the infant, placing the item in an onboard stowage space or in the cargo hold, we are sensitive to fact that a large Customer has no choice but to occupy more than one seat. For that reason, this is the one instance where we will offer a refund of the additional seat purchased as long as the flight does not oversell."

Q: "Won’t this be embarrassing to the large Customer and the Employee?"

A: "Because this is not a new policy, our Employees have held this sensitive discussion with some Customers in the past. Many Customers who are of a larger size and who travel often by air purchase two seats when making their reservations because (1) the Customer knows he/she occupies more than one aircraft seat and is more comfortable in two seats and (2) the Customer wants to avoid the discussion with Employees at the airport. In fact, by making arrangements in advance, the Customer has allowed us to deplete the inventory of the second seat so that we don’t sell it to someone else. And by the Customer having purchased the seat in advance, we are less likely to oversell the flight."

Q: "What will happen if a large Customer has only purchased one seat?"

A: "We also realize that sometimes a Customer doesn’t know he/she can purchase a seat in advance and arrives at the airport holding only one ticket. In those cases, we have asked our Agents to kindly and discreetly advise the Customer of the need to purchase an additional seat for everyone’s safety and comfort onboard and to give the Customer the document advising how to obtain a refund. By taking the opportunity to educate the Customer for the next time he/she travels, we have managed the Customer’s expectations by providing consistency."

Q: "I am a large person and use a seatbelt extension, but I fit in one aircraft seat, why should I have to purchase two seats?"

A: "Our policy isn’t about a person’s weight or shape. We have no intentions of having scales, sizing templates, measuring tape, etc. That certainly isn’t a way to treat people, and we have never considered any such thing. Many Customers may use a seatbelt extension but occupy only one seat. Those Customers would not be asked to pay for a second seat. We are simply asking a Customer who must lift the armrest in order to sit in the aircraft seat and who, at that point, is obviously occupying a portion (or all) of the seat next to him/her, to pay for the additional seat being occupied. Again, we will offer a refund if the flight does not oversell."

Q: "Why not make your seats wider or add a few wide seats on your aircraft?"

A: "It’s important to point out that all airlines sell seats to provide transportation between point A and point B. For 2001, on average only six seats per aircraft accounted for Southwest Airlines’ profit. Our goal has always been to make air travel affordable so that everyone could fly. The cities we serve have seen a substantial decrease in generally available air fares, a marked increase in passenger traffic, and more frequent offerings of service; a phenomenon often referred to as "The Southwest Effect." If we were to replace just three rows of three seats with two seats, each being one and a half times wider, we would have to double our fares to maintain our profit margin. Southwest provides all coach class seating; we do not have first class seats on our aircraft. Think of what the other airlines charge for "first class" seating. Let’s take, for example, the Los Angeles-Baltimore/Washington market. Our highest one-way fare is currently $299.00. The equivalent fare for a "coach" seat (same "size" as all of our seats) on our competitors is, give or take a few dollars, $1,100.00 one-way; and a first-class, wider seat is, on average, is $1,650.00 one-way. Purchasing two seats on Southwest Airlines is significantly less expensive than purchasing one first class seat on another airline. And remember, we also offer significantly discounted advance purchase fares. Our goal is and has always been to make air travel affordable, and by asking a person to pay upfront for the "product" being used, this guarantees that everyone has a safe and comfortable experience. Plus, we will refund the additional purchase as long as the flight does not oversell."

Q: "If a flight is "open," why are you charging for an additional seat?"

A: "In the past, when we have allowed some flexibility on "open" flights, we ended up inconveniencing our Customers who need two seats by not providing a consistent expectation. As you may know, the nature of our flights is to combine two or more short, nonstop flights to make a medium to longer haul journey. This means, to get from point A to point B, a Customer may make one or more stops along the way. While the first segment of a flight was "open," oftentimes the remaining segment(s) to a Customer’s destination were full. If a large Customer occupied two seats, but only paid for one, we often found ourselves in the dilemma of having to pay another downline Customer denied boarding compensation because we could not accommodate the downline Customer. Additionally, a Customer’s outbound flight might be open, but the return was full. The inconsistent application of charging for the extra seat on the outbound but not on the return often left the Customer not knowing what to expect and not having a full understanding of our policy. Consistent application of our policy allows a Customer to know what to expect always."

Q: "Isn’t this policy discriminatory toward large Customers?"

A: "Southwest Airlines does not condone discrimination in any form. We have Employees and Customers of all races, ethnicity, religions, shapes, and sizes. Our Mission has always been and will always be to provide safe, reliable, and affordable air transportation for America."


Personally, I think Southwest Airlines should change their slogan from "Just Plane Smart" to "We Only Like Small People-- All Others Pay Extra."

Mae West

"I've been in more laps than a napkin." The other Mae West

[wbahn]

As a rule, I support SWA's right to make such a policy. I don't think it's a good policy and I don't think it's a smart policy - as I think they are discovering. But they have the right to make it and the subsequent obligation to live with the consequences.

I don't go to amusement parks because, the last time I went, I couldn't comfortably ride anything much more daring than the merry go round. But I don't feel I have the right to demand that they make their rides accommodate me.

But it is still important for companies such as amusement parks and stores and airlines and just about everyone else to remember one thing - no matter how little they think they need my business, the simple fact is that I need their goods and services even less. That simple fact dictates the tone of our relationship and whether there will even be one.

I think a better policy for SWA would be something along the lines of:

=====================
It is a common occurance that, for a variety of reasons, some people are denied the ability to board and take a flight that they have paid for. These customers are routinely compensated in some manner for this inconvenience and we always ask for volunteers first. But there are times when we must select which passengers will be denied service - and when we do the degree of compensation given increases accordingly.

If a situation arises where an aircraft is full and a larger passenger is encroaching on the seating space of another passenger to an unacceptable degree and other arrangements cannot be made, the larger passenger may be denied service and, with appropriate compensation, not be allowed to take the flight.
=====================

But I found one of the claims made in their statement to be really troubling:

From SWA's statement quoted in an earlier post:
For 2001, on average only six seats per aircraft accounted for Southwest Airlines’ profit. ... If we were to replace just three rows of three seats with two seats, each being one and a half times wider, we would have to double our fares to maintain our profit margin.

This statement is laughably assinine.

Before we even look at this ridiculous claim in any depth, we can rule it out as being absurd immediately. If I had, say, only sixty passengers on a plane and I dropped that by three because I elimated seats, then my number of passengers went down by 5%. In order to keep the same revenue, I would therefore need to increase the amount paid by each remaining passenger by roughly 5%. It is completely irrelevant whether my profit for the flight corresponded to six seats, forty seats or half a seat. We're talking middle school match. So the notion that they would have to double their fares shouldn't have survived the first glance and the person that suggested it should have been sent out to get coffee.

What does the first part mean? Assuming that it is an accurate statement in the first place, it means this: on average, the amount of profit from each flight is equal to the average fare of six seats.

So, just to put some numbers to it, this is data taken from SWA website:



Approximately 2800 flights a day

364 aircraft - 52 with 122 seats and 312 with 137 seats.

2001 Financial Statistics:
Net income: $511.1 million
Total passengers carried: 64.4 million
Total RPMs: 44.5 billion
Passenger load factor: 68.1 percent
Total operating revenue: $5.6 billion


If they average 2800 flights a day, then they make 1,022,000 flights a year.

If they carried 64.4 million passengers with a total revenue of $5.6 billion, then their average revenue per customer was $86.95, their average number of passengers per flight was 63, and their average revenue per flight was $5480.

Keep in mind that a person making a round trip flight is TWO passengers - one going out and one coming back. This assumes that there is no significant revenue from other sources such as cargo - which is almost certainly not true since cargo carrying is a significant part of most airlines' business. But let's assume that there is no cargo service.

That means that the average revenue from a round trip ticket is only about $174. I can probably believe this given the claim that their HIGHEST one-way ticket is under $300 and since taxes and fees chip away pretty thoroughly at the fare the customer pays before the remainder gets counted as "revenue" for the airline.

Their "Net Income" of $511.1 million dollars divided by the number of flights means that, on average, each flight contributed right at $500 (of the $5480) toward that bottom line. At $86.95 per seat, that's 5.75 seats. This is almost undoubtedly where the six seat figure comes from. It appears reasonable (subject to the cargo question) so we will accept it at face value.

So, let's assume that we remove the three seats from the airplane as suggested and let's make the wild assumption that, on every flight, this means three fewer passengers. So instead of 63 passengers to get that $500 toward the bottom line, it would have to be done with only 60. In order to generate the same revenue - the $5480 per flight - each person would now have to contribute $91.33. That's a difference of only $4.38 each way or less than an addition $9 for a roundtrip ticket. And this would actually result in slightly more Net Income since three fewer people means less weight, less fuel cost, less food and beverage cost, less labor to handle baggage, etc. But these factors are pretty minimal as it costs almost exactly as much to fly an empty airliner (with a full crew) as it does to fly a full airliner.

So we've just seen that, even if removing three seats from each airplane to make room for six larger seats meant that EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT had to have three fewer passengers, that the average ticket price would only have to go up by $10. If that constitutes a doubling of the price, I want to know how to get that fare in the first place!

But what percentage of flights would such a change actually reduce the number of passengers on the plane. The answer - very few. On average, their aircraft have 135 seats - and worst case they have 122. So with an average load of 63 passengers they have a LOT more than three empty seats on the VAST majority of flights. For those flights, what difference does it make if 15 seats are empty or 18 seats are empty?

Now, at this point there is a discrepancy in their data. They claim a Passenger Load Factor of 68.1%. This would appear to mean that, on average, their planes are 68.1% full. But that would mean an average of 92 people per flight. That can be correlated with the total number of passengers only if they are flying just 1920 flights per day and not the 2800 claimed. It would also mean that the profit per flight corresponds to 8.4 seats and not six. So I suspect that the 68.1% is referring to something other than what I interpretted it to be - or there claim of a profit corresponding to six seats is wrong. But, even with these alternate numbers, the $10 would cover the worst-case shortfall and that the vast majority of flights would still have more than three empty seats today.

I have no idea what percentage of flights are fully booked, but I would suspect it to be under 1%. Let's say that it's 10%. That means that the shortfall due to fewer seats would only be 10% of worst case. So by increasing every ticket by only $1 they would cover the shortfall.

But let's look at it the other way. Say they took the three rows of three and converted them to six oversize seats. They could then make these seats available to customers at a, say, $20 premium (or even a $50 premium). Their number of customers would INCREASE because people that currently fly other airlines in the cramped seats would CHOOSE to pay more to fly SWA. They could sell some of the seats and keep a couple of seats open until the very end in order to let a couple people upgrade on the almost full flights.

Now, please note that the above statement by SWA was made by Colleen Barrett. She is not just some media relations hack. She is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Southwest Airlines. So, either she is so math illiterate as to actually think that her statement makes sense, or she is knowingly lying to us by using blantantly bogus Fuzzy Math. In either case, is she someone who should be making key decisions for a multi-billion dollar company?

I think I will be writing SWA and ask them that question. It will be interesting to see if I get one of those "accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers" that they claim I deserve.

[wbahn]

I have sent a letter to SWA. Basically, I took my post above and did some minor edits to it and added some verbage at the beginning and at the end.

Here is what I added at the beginning:


Dear Southwest Airlines,

Since you do not accept e-mail correspondence, perhaps you would be kind enough to ensure that I receive one of those “accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers” your website proclaims that I deserve.
But first, let me ask you – the person reading this – if the following statement makes sense to you and if you agree with it:

A hypothetical airplane has 100 people on it. Each person paid $100 for a ticket. After subtracting out the operating expenses, the profit from that flight was $500 – or the equivalent of just five seats. The revenue from the other 95 went to pay the flight’s expenses. Now, on the same flight the next day there are only going to be 96 people – four less than before. Since we have lost four of the five “profit seats”, I must charge everyone five times as much – or $500 per ticket – in order to make the same profit.

Do you agree with this assertion? Or do you feel it to be a ridiculous claim? If you agree, please pass this letter to a person with a brain because you will only get increasingly confused from here on out. If you feel it to be a ridiculous claim, then perhaps you should be running Southwest Airlines as you have already demonstrated a far greater degree of math literacy and common sense than your President and Chief Operating Officer, Colleen Barrett.

If you are still reading this, I will assume that you can think and can follow along with the following discussion. While it does get quite involved, rest assured that there is nothing in it beyond middle school math.

This letter is prompted by the following answer by Ms. Barrett to a question on your website:



And this is what I added at the end:


Now, let’s get back to what I consider to be a very key point in all of this. Colleen Barrett made the above statement by SWA. She is not just some media relations hack. She is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Southwest Airlines. So, either she is so math illiterate as to actually think that her statement makes sense despite the glaring and obvious absurdity of it, or she is knowingly lying to us by using blatantly bogus “fuzzy math” (is that part of the “Southwest Effect, too?). In either case, is she someone who should be making key decisions for a multi-billion dollar company?

On a different item, Ms. Barrett makes the following answer at the bottom of this same web page:

Isn’t this policy discriminatory toward large Customers?
Southwest Airlines does not condone discrimination in any form. We have Employees and Customers of all races, ethnicity, religions, shapes, and sizes. Our Mission has always been and will always be to provide safe, reliable, and affordable air transportation for America.

Do you really consider this an answer to the question asked? Does merely having “Employees and Customers of all races, ethnicity, religions, shapes, and sizes.” somehow mean that your policies toward them are not discriminatory? What if you decided to charge all colored people a double fare and someone asked the above question? Would you give the same answer?

I certainly look forward to your "accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answer" that addresses all of these questions.



I'll be sure to let you know what, if any, response I get.

[Victoria]

I have read what SWA had on it's website. And read this thread thoroughly. I copied the address to SWA and plan to send them a letter. I think if we all send them a letter, it might make a sufficient impact. My first reaction to hearing this issue on the news was, "well, I'll never use Southwest Airlines." I will let them know that. I know that I do not want to be embarrassed at the airport when I get there. And I haven't that kind of extra money to have to buy two seats. I flew a few years ago, at this weight or bigger and didn't have a problem. I was sitting with my children tho, and didn't have to sit next to strangers. But I know that just as in movie theatres...their are some theatres with bigger seats than others. Infact, the older theatres had bigger and more comfortable seats than now a days. I wonder if they've made the seats smaller for added profit. Or if they've always been extremely narrow?

Thank you Bill for doing the math. I wondered myself why they thought they'd have to double the price of the ticket if they added a few bigger seats. I also wondered where they got their figures on how much other airlines charge for their fares. I have never paid $ 1,000 for a flight. Apparently they are not aware that we can buy tickets at good prices on other airlines that treat fat people better. :mad: Victoria

[Shark01]

Our big fear shouldn't be that SWA is doing this (because we WOULD have other choices) but that ALL airlines would adopt this policy :thdown: :mad:

I can envision situations where a business traveler who is fat would be fired because it costs his company twice as much to travel as the next guy :eek:

If you don't send them a letter, you might just be laying down in front of the anti-fat steamroller............CRUNCH :exclm:

[Meadow]

The overweight are not protected by the ADA. Being overweight is not considered a disability, although I feel it sure qualifies. It seems that most of the general population feel that obesity is totally avoidable and therefore not considered "disability". Although I weighed 325 pounds at my heaviest, I have never taken up more than my own seat. I even leave the arm down. However, that has not stopped other passengers from making nasty comments. I even had one flight attendent delibretly(sp) and repeatedly knock into my shoulder because it was protruding slightly into the isle. I've also had passengers make comments like "just don't get between me and the emergency exit, lady". Discrimination is alive and well out there folks. It's not only acceptable to discriminate against the obese... in some cases it's promoted. That is exactly what the airline is doing now... promoting discrimination. Purely disqusting behavior if you ask me.

[wbahn]

To give the devil his due, Southwest (in my experience) does generally have significantly better fares than their competitors (they are a very no frills airline) and the few times I have flown them I have been treated just as well as on any other airline. They also have one of the best safety records in the industry - and that counts for a lot in my book.

But I cannot stand when ANY company or organization uses bogus fuzzy math in order to defend any position - even if it's one I support.

As for the $1000 fares. My guess is that they looked for worst one-way fare purchased at the gate on the busiest day of the year. Another case of bogus number-twisting if true.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Meadow
I have never taken up more than my own seat. I even leave the arm down. However, that has not stopped other passengers from making nasty comments. I even had one flight attendent ....

This is so true. I personally haven't experienced it, since my size (or look) tends to intimade those who don't know me :) but I hear those comments quite often directed towards us fat people.

I think if we buy tickets for two seats, the problem will even get worst, since it advertises to the whole flight, during the entire flight, look at me, I'm so big they had to assign me two seats!!! It will mainly make us a spectacle for all to watch.

Wa'il

[Mae West]

I just read this little article on MSNBC.com. It's nice to know that someone else thinks SWA's policy is as crazy as we think it is:

"MSNBC"

"June 26 — Complete this sentence: Calista Flockhart is, a) an extreme and unhealthy example of Hollywood’s mania for thinness, or,
b) the perfect Southwest Airlines customer.

"If Southwest wants a real problem to tackle, any airline passenger could give them a dozen."

"THERE WERE more important travel stories last week — Amtrak’s fate, for one. But no travel story of recent days drew as much conversation, and as many differing opinions, as Southwest Airlines’ announcement that the airline would begin to enforce a decades-old policy requiring passengers who spill over into a second seat to buy two tickets."

"The policy’s not new. And according to a well-written June 21 column by David Greising of the Chicago Tribune, the issue isn’t even a big
problem."

"Says Greising: “Southwest flew 64 million passengers last year. Of those, 500 were deemed so large they had to buy an extra seat. That’s 0.0000078 percent of Southwest’s customer base who couldn’t fit into the 18 3/4-inch seats.”

"Was this really the most important issue facing Southwest in this troubled time for travel? If Southwest wants a real problem to tackle, any airline passenger could give them a dozen. How about more leg room, for one? How about adjusting the reclining seatbacks so we don’t have to sit with other passengers’ heads in our laps? How about marking off the carry-on bins so that those seated below them have first shot at the space, only opening it up to others after the plane is full?"

"Oh, don’t get me started, Southwest. Don’t get me started."

It was nice to read that other people are on our side.

But I think Shark01 is right-- EVERYONE needs to write to Southwest, and let the airline know that they will be losing customers by enforcing this policy... Otherwise, other airlines (and bus companies, and train companies) may start developing and enforcing the same kind of policy.
Hmmm... maybe we could all get together and have a demonstration march to Southwest's Headquarters in Texas. Wouldn't that be terrific exercise?!?
;)

Mae West
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful." The other Mae West

[Mae West]

Sorry for taking up so much room... (I'm glad you lowcarbers aren't charging me double for the room I'm taking up in this thread!) But I thought this was funny. It's from the Chicago Times.

"Published June 26, 2002"

"Last week, Southwest Airlines announced it will require "customers of size" who are too large to squeeze between the armrests to buy a second ticket. To counterbalance that heartless decision, the Tempo Subcommittee on Public Relations Damage Control advises that Southwest offer these specials:"

"- Half-price fares for any emaciated supermodel who can share a single seat with another emaciated supermodel."

"- A tall person can bring a short person as carry-on luggage, if they stay put, and keep quiet, in the overhead compartment."

"- 75 percent off for anyone willing to fly the plane."

"- A free bag of peanuts for passengers with enormous bladders who don't use the facilities."

"- A 6 percent discount for all anorexics."

"- Anxious people who deplane within 30 seconds of when the exits open, without hurting anyone, get a free blood pressure gauge."

"- Fear Factor contestants and other "X-treme" passengers can ride on the wing for $10."

"- Mimes can ride for free in specially priced imaginary seats. (Obese mimes pay full fare for two imaginary seats.)"

"- Kids under 30 pounds, contortionists and "customers of height" who can squeeze under the seat get a free DVD of the pre-flight safety lecture."

"- Specially selected coach passengers who ask no questions of and make no demands on airline personnel receive the book "A Culture of Commitment," the leadership secrets of Southwest's founder Herb Kelleher."

Mae West

[tamarian]

That's too funny, Mae! Thanks for sharing it. :)

Wa'il

[Meadow]

Reading your post really did my heart good, Mae. That is one article deserving of being forwarded through email. Brought a little humor to a sad subject. Thanks. :)

[TRiggs]

Think for just one minute about the person who is sitting next to a large person on that plane. Should they just ignore the fact that thier nieghbors girth is taking up part of what little space they are given on a flight? While I agree the airlines should make larger seats to accomodate big people, its also not fair to the slimmer community that nothing was being done to resolve the problem they face when a person of size is seated beside them on the plane.

[Meadow]

Businesses all over the US are required to make changes to accomadate people with disabilities. They remodel bathrooms, widen doors, lower counters, build ramps, redo parking, etc. Airlines are not excempt from this. However... being overweight is not considered a "legal" disability...soooooo the overweight can be discrimated against. Think for a minute of the large community. How do they feel about being squished into a small seat, not being able to pull down the food tray, having the thinner person next to them complain about your gurth? IF this was about fairness or comfort... then the airline would be required to accomadate people of ALL sizes and shapes. No... in my opinion, this is strictly about money!

Ok... I feel better now. Thanks for listening. :)

[Shark01]

Originally posted by TRiggs
Think for just one minute about the person who is sitting next to a large person on that plane. Should they just ignore the fact that thier nieghbors girth is taking up part of what little space they are given on a flight? While I agree the airlines should make larger seats to accomodate big people, its also not fair to the slimmer community that nothing was being done to resolve the problem they face when a person of size is seated beside them on the plane.

What about sitting next to others I don't like? I don't want to sit next to yelling kids, next to annoying old people who want to talk your ear off, smelly smokers, drunk flyers, etc. They are invading my personal space, why not charge them double :rolleyes:

[TRiggs]

I can't believe this! You have to keep an open mind when discussing this kind of stuff and not get angry at the first person that steps in and has a different opinion. Lighten up shark01.

[Meadow]

I think when a person feels passionate about a subject, whether it be for or against, they have the right to express that passion as long as they don't make personal attacks on another. I defend sharks right to express his opinion and didn't feel he was personally attacking anyone. I also understand what triggs was saying and defend their right to say it. We need to be aware that some of us may have personally experienced discrimination and rudeness due to our size and as a result feel passionate and yes defensive about this issue.

[Shark01]

Originally posted by TRiggs
I can't believe this! You have to keep an open mind when discussing this kind of stuff and not get angry at the first person that steps in and has a different opinion. Lighten up shark01.

The point is that air travel reduces everyone's personal space. It isn't your living room. I have to sit next to bodybuilders with wide shoulders and tall people whose legs invade my foot area. It's just part of economical air travel. I shouldn't be charged double for the same seating, simple as that :thup:

A piece of advice, if you don't have a thick skin, avoid posting obviously conflicting opinions and expecting not to be called on it :wave:

[TRiggs]

You should do the same :D

[Victoria]

Okay boys, let's play nice. ;)

I think you both have understandable points of view. But my question is...why are the seats only 18 inches wide? How long have they been this narrow? Is that pretty standard, or have they reduced the size of seats to make more money? The idea of converting a few seats to accomodate larger people sounds reasonable to me. They may have to after the suit being filed against them. It was just on the news the other day. Two women are suing SWA for their policy on buying two tickets because of their size. They were embarrassed by it and have filed suit. Something to keep an eye on. I knew it wouldn't be long before someone sued them.

I know as a LARGE person, I would not want to squish the person next to me. I am left handed as well, and have always been conscious of not elbowing people and taking up other's space. Any left handers would understand the contortion we have to go thru when eating next to others. Most FAT people are aware of their surroundings and are not trying to be rude to other's around them. But I definitely don't want to have to buy two tickets. :rolleyes: Victoria

[Shark01]

Originally posted by TRiggs
You should do the same :D

As should you :D

[Mae West]

I can envision situations where a business traveler who is fat would be fired because it costs his company twice as much to travel as the next guy.

This is what worries me. If the US courts decide that airlines have the right to charge a passenger any amount they wish-- based solely on the passenger's size (not color, handicapping condition, religion, ethnic background, or annoying habits)-- how long will it be before trains, bus companies realize they can also charge double for taking one passenger of size?

And referring to Shark's quote above, if a large person is applying for a job, and a small person is applying for the same job, who would the employer be likely to hire? The fat one who would cost the company twice as much to travel? Or the small economy sized person? And who would blame an employer for legally discriminating against fat people?

If the US Supreme court decides that charging double based on size is all right,
discrimination against fat people will not be discrimination at all.

It will simply be good business sense.

Mae West
"A guy in the cadillac is worth six guys in the phone book." The other Mae West

[Mae West]

I was surfing the web-- trying to find information about the two women suing SWA that Victoria wrote about, and came across this interesting article on the subject:

"2 tickets, please: Fat man flying"

"By Jeffrey A. Leon. Jeffrey A. Leon is a Chicago attorney"

"Published June 30, 2002"

"The other day I found myself walking into a major airport worried that I was about to commit a "crime": As a portly individual, I was about to try to fly on an airplane despite the fact that I had purchased only one seat. Imagine my brazen audacity!"

"Let's get one thing out of the way immediately. I am a large man. Fat. Obese. A whale. Unambiguously large. I am not 20 or 30 pounds overweight (I wish!). I can stand to lose multiples of that weight. Yet anyone looking at me would be fairly certain I have a problem that overeating alone cannot explain."

"Thanks to Southwest Airlines, I now have to contend with people staring at me, wondering if I am "stealing" an extra seat, as well as the prospect of a subjective appraisal by a gate agent that I have to purchase an extra ticket to accommodate myself, while some other person who shops at my Big and Tall store does not. Exactly who is fat enough to be forced to purchase an extra seat?"

"Does the tall guy whose knees are digging into the back of my seat have to pay extra? What about the people who have brought shopping bags from half the stores on Michigan Avenue onto the plane, taking up all the overhead space?"

"Perhaps the gate agents should force a person with bad body odor to purchase two seats as a buffer zone because sitting next to a smelly passenger is unpleasant."

"I have experienced all these discomforts of flying and more. The bottom line is that we are all subjected to numerous indignities every time we fly on an airplane, and sitting next to the fat guys should rank fairly low on the list. Worse, being singled out amongst all the inconveniencers for punitive treatment simply because I am fat is itself an indignity."

"The implications of this policy go far beyond offending my delicate sensibilities. I am a partner at a large Chicago law firm, and travel is a regular part of my job. Will my clients now wonder if they should hire me to handle their cases because they might have to pay twice as much to fly me around as compared to the skinnier guy who also is under consideration? Let us be clear, this is discrimination, pure and simple. And what is worse is that Southwest has chosen discrimination when reasonable accommodations can easily be made."

"For starters, I am considerate. I try to avoid planes that are fully packed, and will fly only when I have an aisle seat, as the armrest on the aisle lifts up and allows me to give anyone sitting next to me additional space. I will not fly in a middle seat, as it is unfair to the others in the row and extremely uncomfortable for me. I have let planes go and caught the next one if an aisle seat is unavailable."

"In short, Southwest has chosen a path that was unnecessary and will inflict economic and pyschic injury on a group of people who already, as a general rule, suffer from low esteem. Let us not pretend that the extremely obese do not have a handicap. One does not get this way without a strong helping hand from genetics. But Southwest suggests I should go on a diet, as if I have not thought of that or tried a million of them."

"I will not fly Southwest any longer, and I hope the rest of the industry does not come to share its callous notion of customer service."

Amen.

In my travels on the web, I couldn't find anything about the two women suing SWA though. Do you happen to know where that happened, Victoria? Maybe their local newspapers would have more information.

Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken so long before we heard of any suits. I thought there would be news on suits starting to be filed on June 27th---

I'm flying to Hollywood on Delta Airlines this Saturday. (I really am! It's not just my Mae West imaginary personality!) I haven't heard that Delta has this kind of policy, but boy am I nervous about it. I have budgeted just enough extra money to be able to afford a taxi, and maybe a hamburger (sans the bun of course.) If they tell me I have to pay double I'll just have to leave the airport before my torrent of tears ground all the planes.

Mae West
"I never diet. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond." The other Mae West

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Mae West
I couldn't find anything about the two women suing SWA though. Do you happen to know where that happened, Victoria?

I saw them on CNN a couple of days ago, and they are about to suit Southwest. What struck me about their case, is that they (two big black women) offered to purchase 3 seats for the two of them, and Southwest refused, insisting on 4 seats for the two of them!!!!!

This in itself should win the case for them. Imagine, refusing to sell 3 seats to be accupied by two passengers flying together.

Wa'il

[Mae West]

Imagine, refusing to sell 3 seats to be accupied by two passengers flying together.

WOW! The more I hear about SWA policies, the more my jaw scrapes on the floor! I'm speechless! :eek:

Mae West
"Don't ever make the same mistake twice... unless it pays." The Other Mae West

[Victoria]

They were flying from California to Las Vegas. I'm thinking it was Oakland, CA. but my memory isn't clear where their starting point was.

I can't believe they wouldn't let them take three seats for the two of them. That sounded like a great solution. I'm sure we'll hear more soon. ;) Victoria

[Talon]

http://www.itv.com/news/Front217744.html

'People of size' to sue airline
8.43AM BST, 30 Jun 2002

Two overweight women are set to sue a US airline that made them buy two tickets each, because of their size.

Trina Oliver and Felicia Crawford are outraged that Southwest Airlines forced them to pay for extra seats on a flight from Oakland, California to Las Vegas.

Trina and Felicia tried to negotiate with the airline agent to purchase only one extra seat, so they could sit together and share the space between them.

But the agent refused, so the two women had to stump up $170 (£110) for another set of round-trip tickets.

"I was angry. I was hurt. I was frustrated. I was like, you know, why is this happening to me? It's not right," said Felicia Crawford.

In a statement, Southwest Airlines confirmed that any customer needing to lift the armrest would be required to pay for the additional seat.

The company pointed out that it was only enforcing US policy, which states that larger passengers must buy an extra seat on the plane.

"We sell seats, and if you consume more than one seat, you have to buy more than one seat," said a Southwest spokeswoman.

However, advocates for the obese are outraged.

"It's just discriminatory and it's mean-spirited," said Morgan Downey, executive director of the American Obesity Association. "This is singling out a group that's been very heavily stigmatised rather than making some accommodations in their cabins."

Campaigners acting on behalf of "people of size" believe airlines should introduce wider seats to accommodate the fact that Americans are getting larger - according to some estimates, more than one fourth of Americans are obese.

[Shark01]

Good for them.......those idiots need to be sued :thup:

[michenry]

I am amused by the outrage expressed here. To me it's very simple, if you substantially flow into the next seat why shouldn't you pay for it? Put another way . . .if I am sitting within my seat's constraints, and have paid for that space, why should I have to tolerate your legs, thighs, arms and waist contiually pressing into me? This doesn't necessarily happen when a average sized person sits next to me. I think it IS discrimination . . . against ME.

Why do you people think you have a right to impose yourself physically upon me?

These thoughts are from a Continental Gold Elite member (50k miles a year)

Buy two seats or fly first class but don't infringe upon me and don't claim discrimination when I complain.

[michenry]

By the way . . .is it discriminatory that clothing manufacturers charge more for 3x sized clothing?

Should the airlines be forced to increase seat size (capital expense and reduced revenue) and keep prices stable? Should all people be forced to bear the costs of increasing space (which of course means less revenue) because, as someone mentioned, 25% of the US is overweight?

Again . . .why should the airlines be penalized because you can't fit in your seat? A seat in which the clear majority of customers do fit. Why should a paying customer have to endure to slow pressing of your flesh against them for hours at a time?

Mean spirited . . .give me a break.

Again . . fit into one seat or buy two (or first class).

[wbahn]

As I have said before, I believe that the airlines have every right to impose such a policy - and live with the consequences. As far as I am concerned this policy is perfectly legitimate - it's just also perfectly stupid. Stupid from a business standpoint and stupid from a public relations standpoint. I have already shown that their math is atrocious. Their claim that to provide just six seats that are 50% wider would require them to double their prices is assinine in the extreme and if they are making business decisions based upon such a laughable financial analysis then they deserve everything they get.

Consider this - if the profit derived from each flight, on average, equals the fare of just six seats (per their claim and also reasonable based on their financial data), then if they drive away, on average, just one person from every flight because of this policy then their profit will go down nearly 20% and will have to raise fares for everyone else. So, unless they expect people to flock to SWA because of their two-seat policy - more people than are driven away by it - the irony is that the thin people will end up paying more for their seats as a result. But, this is exactly as it should be. If a thin person wants to fly on an airline that guarantees that their "space" won't be encroached upon, then that airline has increased the value of that seat and the person purchasing it should pay more.

The sad part is that there is a simple win-win situation here. Modify a certain number of rows to accommodate larger people. On the vast majority of flights this will result in NO loss of revenue because the vast majority of flights are far from being full. They can even charge a reasonable surcharge for the wider seats - a surcharge that wouldn't need to be refunded if the flight isn't full. That will attract MORE people to SWA - more large people because of the availability of larger seats and more thin people because of the decreased likelihood of having a large person encroach on their "space". Then SWA could lower their fares and still make more profit than at present. Gee, what a concept.

[michenry]

One question?

How do the extra large seats get assigned? First come first served? (which is the SWA way of doing business). Or, if I reserve an extra large seat and someone else decides I am not deserving of it (or as deserving as they), who moderates?

When such a reservation is requested is the agent required to inquire as to my physical dimensions? I can just hear the moral outrage to the question "how broad is your behind?"

I think SWA has articulated a rational reiteration of a policy that has been in place since 1980.
No where do I read into it any reference to weight. I will acknowledge, however, that weight will be the most obvious "target", but the policy does not preclude the overly tall.

You can rest assured that if market demands are significant, SWA will create a product that allows them to increase profitability. SWA sells one product - a safe seat to a destination. If you consume more then the one seat - pay for it. Very Simple.

[wbahn]

How are first class seats assigned on other airlines? By people that are willing to pay for them. If you want a larger seat, then pay the surcharge. What's so complicated about that?

When such a reservation is requested is the agent required to inquire as to my physical dimensions? I can just hear the moral outrage to the question "how broad is your behind?"

Think about this for a moment. You see no problem at all when an agent gets to decide who has to pay double (and how are they going to make this determination - are they going to inquire about my physical dimensions?) yet you can just hear the moral outrage if they asked it of people wanting to pay extra for a wider seat (which they wouldn't have to be asking in the first place)?

I think SWA has articulated a rational reiteration of a policy that has been in place since 1980.

If you call the math that they used in that "rational reiteration" to try to make people believe that losing just three seats overall in order to provide six wide seats would require them to double their fares, then I have a whole bunch of bridges that I'd like to talk to you about.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by michenry
why should I have to tolerate your legs, thighs, arms and waist contiually pressing into me?

Actually, you do tolerate long legs and arms. That is part of the problem. An important distiction you have missed.

The problem is when some think being tall is a great thing, worth making exceptions for and not charging for it. While those who need an extra inch of width, must be punished for their wrong doing by being "big fat pigs", by paying a double fair for it.

Read some posts above, two big ladies aren't allowed to purchase 3 seat tickets, which is more than enough for them. They were forced to purchase 4 seats, whre they can't use the 4th seat , it's across the isle.

So, yes, it can be made into simplistic argument, you take more space, pay double. But this is hiding you head in the sand regarding the punitive nature of this discrimination.

Had they decided to charge per weight, not looks, I would not call it discrimination.

Wa'il

[michenry]

It's apparent that you have no experience with SWA (and living in Colorado that's not surprising - SWA doesn't service DEN or COS) but anyway SWA doesn't pre-assign seats. First Come First Served. Which incidentally is the very reason I don't fly SWA - nothing worse then to have had a reservation for 3 weeks or more and run through an airport to catch a connecting flight only to arrive as the plane is boarding and be seated in a middle seat. But that's another story.

The "moral outrage" comment was sarcasm.

SWA will have to design and implement a new reservations system, and train CC reps to now make seat assignments over the phone. All a gate agent has to do now is take a look at the reality of the situation. The key word here is "reality" - either you fit or you don't. SWA will have to incur the capital expense of new seats and the labor to install and certify the new seats. There are currently 366 planes in SWA fleet.

That SWA chose to use questionable math to justify their position is of no concern to me as I am neither a shreholder, customer or an auditor for the SEC.

Your suggestion that modifying airplanes is a very simple action is naive. This modification has serious logistical impacts, which are contrary to SWA's business model - which has been wildly successful in the open marketplace.

I am retiring from this tedious discussion.

[Meadow]

Perhaps the person who is so very offended by a person of size sitting near them should be the one to purchase a second seat. That would not be discrimination then... that would be choice. Will SWA now have a seat at the ticket counter and require everyone to have a seat before purchasing a ticket so that they might see if the arm rest goes down? I don't believe the issue is crowded space at all. I belive the issue is that people are disguested with fat. Notice how the discriptions all refer to "rolling over" or "spilling over" into someones space. Would these same people be so offended if a handsome linebacker with enormous shoulders sat next to them. I think they would rather enjoy a little shoulder rubbing in that case. But God forbid if a "fat" person takes up 1 inch more space than the general public belives they are allowed.

[wbahn]

It's apparent that you have no experience with SWA

If you will look earlier in the thread, you will see my comments regarding my overall view of and experience with SWA - they are generally positive.

SWA will have to incur the capital expense of new seats and the labor to install and certify the new seats.

The costs are marginal. The seats and rails already exist and are already certified. Many inspection operations require the removal of all seats so it is a trivial cost to replace them after such an inspection with the two-seat groups. The capital outlay is actually more than offset since they can sell the three-seat group for more than the two-seat group.

SWA will have to design and implement a new reservations system, and train CC reps to now make seat assignments over the phone.

The modification is trivial - they only have to print a one letter or character code some place on the ticket. The training of reps is pretty simple as well. "Would you care for an extra wide seat at a premium charge of $29?" Don't you think that would be just a tad bit easier than training gate agents to accurately size passengers and then confront them and deal with the issue of someone showing up for a flight that they purchased in good faith for $200 and then get told, at the point of delivery, that it is now $400 for the same service - transportation from point A to point B. Can we say "bait and switch"?

SWA can say whatever they want about them being in the business of selling SEATS. It's simply not true. How many people call up an airline and say, "I want to buy a seat on a flight - doesn't matter to me where the flight is going since I'm only in the market for a seat." Instead, people call up and ask for a transportation from one airport to another airport and almost never get into details about the seat. How many times do flyers ask reservations for a seat that has raisable arm rests? How may times to flyers ask reservations for a seat that actually reclines back? If people are buying SEATS and not TRANSPORTATION, then these would be upfront questions. Instead, people sometimes ask about window or aisle and that's about the extent of it.

That SWA chose to use questionable math to justify their position is of no concern to me as I am neither a shreholder, customer or an auditor for the SEC.

It's of concern to me because I feel that it should not be acceptable to use bogus analysis and number twisting to create an illusion of propriety - I don't feel it shows ethical behavior on the part of those that practice it. Perhaps if we help corporate managers to a higher level of ethics we wouldn't have Enron and Worldcom and a host of others right now. If nothing else, it should be of concern to you because the fact that you used it as a "rational reiteration of a policy" reflects on you. I'm not saying that as a flame - though I know it sounds like it and for that I apologize up front. Certainly we can all be suckered into buying bogus arguments if they are presented in a sufficiently slick matter. I'm making a general point here and that's all.

[Wendye]

OK - Question:
If you have to buy an extra seat 'cos I'm so huge - do I get an extra meal and do I get 2 eye masks or socoks ???? :lol: Maybe this budget ariline doesn;t have all those frills :confused:

Seriously I do have had real problems fitting into some airline seats - not so much width but depth - I find the seat in front is nearly hitting me in the face - i guess my bum takes too much of the seat space - but have never been asked to buy an extra seat and - I can never get the tray down to use it - so do I get a refund for that!!!

My Dh is small so He get a bit extra of me! ONce I did see 3 very large friends taking up 3 seats in the 'exit' seat row and they looked very squishy but they were happy to be squishy and save the money of buying extra seats.

But it can be embarassing enough - I found on a trip a few years ago - some planes were configured more generously than others - and some seats are slightly larger.And with the 2 women who are sueing - that is just rediculous rule stickling not to allow them to pay for 3 seats between the 2 of them. I reckon they'll win!! I hope they do.

[Kerouac_64]

The late Andre The Giant, pro wrestler had this problem with airline seats his entire life. And, unfortunately his career had him logging many, many flights to get to his various public appearances. He fit in NO SEATS! He literally sat on an empty floor area at the front of the plane, just the side of the aisle so the flight attendant could get by!!! I imagine he had a hard time just walking on the plane, having to stoop so low to get thru the door.

FWIW, I live in mortal fear of flying due to the possible embarassing situations that may arise. And, don't forget the added complexity of health problems related to obesity. I have severe arthritus and use a wheelchair [32" across for my added girth] when going out in large public places where seating is unknown to me.

People who are disabled are often on fixed income with high medical prescription bills. My medications run over $350 a month. I would NEVER be able to afford the extra fees incurred by an extra seat charge. This smells of income-based discrimination as well as discrimination of the obese.

As for the ADA, I feel it is a weak joke. In my former job with a top three pc manufacturer, the ADA person was hired by the company and essentially towed the nonunion company line.

I'll never fly SWA -- I will only do business with airlines who try to work with me in good faith from now on.

:wave:

[Shark01]

Originally posted by michenry
Again . . .why should the airlines be penalized because you can't fit in your seat? A seat in which the clear majority of customers do fit. Why should a paying customer have to endure to slow pressing of your flesh against them for hours at a time?

Mean spirited . . .give me a break.

Again . . fit into one seat or buy two (or first class).

You gotta love people who jump in without a clue of what the point is :rolleyes: , like a wise man once said all doubt has been removed :cool:

The problem is HOW they are deciding to do this. At 350 lbs, I do fit into one seat. But SWA is letting this be decided on an individual basis by individual ticket agents. Now how can a ticket agent decide how many seats I fit into without seeing it :confused: There isn't a sample seat they could jam me into, like the little display they have for deciding if your carry-on will fit into the bin.

They will just make a guess. Now how can I make travel plans if I don't know how I will be charged until I get to the gate :mad: .

The bottom line is that SWA is discriminating against a class of people which is against American ideals and tradition.

Oh, and the clothes comparison is irrelavent anyway........It doesn't cost SWA a single dollar more for me to sit in one seat than anyone else :rolleyes:

[bluebonnet]

Um, okay, I'm going to get TOTALLY slammed for this opinion, I know but, just bear with me here ...

If you need two seats to be comfortable, or to not make someone else miserable for an entire flight, shouldn't you have to pay for the seat, since the airline would lose money on that seat? (I'm talking full flights here.) I'm not sure that falls under "discrimination." I think it's just business sense. Not necessarily from a customer-service point of view, of course, but from the money standpoint. I mean, we have to face it, they're in this for the money. And airlines have had a hard time since 9/11.

No, I DO NOT work for an airline. And I know what this is like -- I used to have to buy a seat for my son when he was an infant, or else put him on my lap for free -- which I never felt was safe. I thought they should have half-price fares for the under-2 set, but the airlines didn't agree with me.

I guess the bottom line is -- money makes Corporate America go 'round, not love (not even for Southwest.)

bluebonnet

[bluebonnet]

Okay, oops! I missed the fact (somehow) that there are 5 pages to this, and I guess other people have made my point? Anyway, a local columnist where I live (comedic columnist) said they should put an airline seat out in front (or behind) the ticket counter and make "questionable" people sit in it to see if they fit, like you do for carry-on luggage.

Now, of course, he was being "funny", but imagine the humiliation of being asked to do that!!

I d'know how they'd enforce it .

One comment I caught was about people who were "offended" by "fat" people should have to buy two seats so they wouldn't have to sit by one. Maybe it's an issue of "offence" for some people, but as most of us have pointed out, those seats are darned uncomfortable anyway, and if you're seated next to someone who is "overflowing" their seat, it's not a matter of being offended by their size, but being made horribly uncomfortable. And I can't even imagine how it must be to be a large person and having to sit in one. So two is the answer. And, as I said before, the airlines are NOT gonna just be nice and give it to anyone free!

So, maybe we're being a little quick to cry "discrimination!!" ???

blue

[Meadow]

I think that people mostly respond to issues based on past experience. I am 5 foot 9 inches and at my heaviest, I never invaded another persons space while flying. However, with out fail, it has been my experience that people are offended that I'm even on the plane. Yes, I use the word offended. I make a point of sitting in the aisle seat and normally my husband is the person sitting next to me. 99% of the time the plane is not full so no one really need sit in the third seat... if there is one.
But you see, people don't care that they don't have to sit next to me. They are offended by my simply being on that plane. How do I know this? Because I have very good ears and I can hear the comments. Comments that might be heard after one walks past, like "No...don't sit behind her." or "well if there is an emergency, we can forget getting out past her." These comments may go unnoticed by many, but I'm very in tune to my surroundings. So while for some, their personal experience leads them to the conclusion that the seating issue is a question of comfort.... for others, like myself, personal experience suggests that people are offended by the very fact that a fat person is on a plane. So what next?? Will the fat person be denied access to a plane because of safety concerns?? Then will they still say that it's not a case of discrimination but now one of safety?? Where does it end?? A group of people are being treated differently based solely on their appearance. Sure sounds like discrimination to me.
But, this is my personal experience and my personal conclusion, it may not be yours. I have compasion for the soul who feels squished by my size. However, there must be a better answer than to discrimiate against a particular group of people. I feel that some posters on this thread have come up with some very good options. IF it's truly a case of comfort, then the airlines can find a better answer. One that does not discriminate.

Here in California there is discussion of requiring children who are overweight to take special physical education classes (consisting of exercises and arobics and nutrition, NOT sports). Children who are of "normal" size may not be required to take physical education at all. Discrimination?? I say yes!

[Camby]

I fly Southwest very frequently and I really like their airline. If someone takes up two seats, they need to pay for it. Obese people shouldn't be treated special. Most obese people have made the choice to be that way......that is the cost of being obese.....among many others. Maybe next time they want to eat like crazy, they will ask themselves...."Is it worth it?" Go to Overeaters Anonymous and get your life under control.....or pay for two seats....The choice is YOURS.... (P.S. I have lost 60 lbs since Jan 4th on Atkins....40 more to go. ) Camby :wave:

[Talon]

Originally posted by Camby
Most obese people have made the choice to be that way......that is the cost of being obese.....among many others. Maybe next time they want to eat like crazy, they will ask themselves...."Is it worth it?"

ok *THIS* offended me, and I know it is not the topic of the thread... I did not choose to be overweight, I did not "eat like crazy". This may be how you feel about yourself, but please do not generalize all overweight people into one catergory.

[Shark01]

Originally posted by Camby
[B]If someone takes up two seats, they need to pay for it. Obese people shouldn't be treated special. Most obese people have made the choice to be that way......that is the cost of being obese.....among many others. Maybe next time they want to eat like crazy, they will ask themselves...."Is it worth it?" Go to Overeaters Anonymous and get your life under control

VERY rude post, you are obviously off to a great start here :thdown: :rolleyes:

Even at over 400, I never "took up" two seats. SWA is practicing a policy of discrimination, and I hope they get punished for it :cool:

[Meadow]

Thank you Talon and Shark! :thup:
I agree, that was a very rude and offensive post. Making assumptions about a group of people based on their size is just another example of discrimination. Even medical science is coming to reconize what the obese have known all along....that in many, many cases, eating is NOT the cause of one being obese. Talon is right, this is not the topic of this thread, so I will say no more.

[tamarian]

If you notice the post count, which is displayed under the username on the left, you will see that some have registered just to fish for fights on this thread :)

Some people would just register to to rouse people with such comments, they used to be called "trolls" on the 'ol USENET. So, try not to take it seriously. ;)

Wa'il

[Meadow]

I'm losing my skills here. I use to be a chat host. I should have reconized the pattern and not taken the bait. Thanks for the reminder Tamarian. :)

[DWRolfe]

Heard this morning that Southwest tried to make someone buy an extra seat on a return trip even though they did not askthem to on the orignial flight a few days earlier...

...must have done some heavy duty eating on that trip! :daze:

Seriously, sounds like there needs to be some clearer guidelines/standards...

Donald :wave:

[Victoria]

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1195091&fromEmail=true

Check out this article. Southwest is not doing very well at public relations lately. :rolleyes: People would rather take the bus than fly their airlines. It seems to me that if you have a child or a husband that doesn't mind being squished next to you...they shouldn't insist you buy another seat. And obviously their rules are so subjective, it really depends on WHO is looking at you and sizing you up. You may be deemed thin enough one way and then be required to buy another seat on your return trip. Victoria

[tamarian]

Yes, I saw the couple and their daughter on CNN. They didn't seem so obese to me, just the average overweight, and they would definitly fit in their seats. That's why they had no problem in the first trip, and the "judgement" at the counter had problems with them on their return.

That should illustrate the depth of the problem to those simplistic responses here, "if you don't fit, pay for another seat!"!

But the wife was really funny. She was telling her daughter that this is a conspiracy from another planet to fight fat, and went into a whole funny story to pass the time on the buss trip back home! ;) She was totally comfortable with her size and only an idiot would ask her to pay for two seats.

Southwest apologized to them afterward and refunded their tickets! But after all this humiliation, it's not enough.

Wa'il

[Camby]

Thanks to Victoria for posting article. It says, "OTHER airlines have similiar policy." Also, "Southwest DOES send a refund if the flight is not full." It is not a big deal.......obese people pay extra for 3X, 4X, etc. clothes. Obese people pay more for health related problems than one wouldn't have if you were not obese. Obese people pay more for larger chains if they want to wear a necklace around their neck, among MANY other things. Hopefully this will be an incentive to loose weight and get things under control, IT IS UP TO YOU (your two little hands can put the right things or the wrong things in your own little mouth).....and Low Carb is the way to do it right, FOR LIFE.....and I supplement with Overeaters Anonymous (no diet, no dues, no weigh-01ins - lots of emotional support).

Jan 4th, 2002, I was 289.....today I am 218....goal weight 180.....I eat great thanks to Atkins!!! I am a compulsive overeater and I am compulsive about getting my life back, and everytime I fly Southwest now I think, 'Thank God I don't have to pay for 2 seats since inches are coming off because of low-carbing!!!'

Camby :)

[Talon]

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/sh/news/ohio/stories/news-ohio-158849620020801-110831.html

ASHLAND, Ohio -- An Ashland man is suing Delta Airlines because he was seated next to an obese man during a two-hour flight last November.

Philip Shafer said that Delta breached its contract to provide him with a full seat and reasonable comfort. Shafer claims he suffered embarrassment, severe discomfort, mental anguish and severe emotional distress from the flight. "I think these large people have a responsibility to take control, either to get two seats, or talk to the airline," Shafer said. "The airline has a responsibility to take care of this problem. The last person who should be worried is the innocent passenger."

An attorney for Delta calls the suit trivial and said that it is not a legitimate issue. The case will go to court in mid-September.

[Shark01]

Originally posted by Talon
[url]Philip Shafer said An attorney for Delta calls the suit trivial and said that it is not a legitimate issue. The case will go to court in mid-September.

Philip Shafer - MORON :rolleyes: out for a quick buck. Hope he returns to safety under his rock sooner rather than later :thdown:

You know 8 years ago I sat next to that woman wearing a whole bottle of purfume who made my flight miserable.......where's Johnny Cochrane :rolleyes: "if the woman stinks of perfume you have to pay my client to leave the room" ;)

[Meadow]

mental anguish and severe emotional distress from the flight.

What? Was he afraid he was going to catch obesity or something?? Give me a break!!

[wbahn]

Just an update. It's now been about six weeks since I sent a letter to Southwest Airlines and I have yet to receive one of those “accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers” their website proclaims that I deserve.

[Shark01]

Yeah, I didn't get any response to mine either :rolleyes:

[RhaChaCha]

just found this thread today - very interesting. guess I missed all the controversy on the news. But I just had to add my two cents...

ok i definately think it is ridiculous for airline employees to make a judgment about a persons size...what a mess. But what amazes me, is that if youare large enough to encroach on another's personal space - why on earth would you want to buy only one ticket? Frankly, when I got too big for airline seats, I just stopped flying - and if I really needed to fly, I just ASSUMED I would have to buy 2 seats - because who wants to sit for several hours with some stranger squished against your hips? YUCK. I would want to have a second seat just for my OWN comfort.

Now, SWA policy is clumsy and embarrassing. However, if one plans on paying for 2 seats from the start (as I would have anyway, even before I hear about this story,) then I think it would be a great gesture for SWA to give me a refund if the flight still had empty seats. Sure, the other airlines don't charge fat people extra, but if I went to the trouble of purchasing 2 seats, I doubt they would give me a refund later. If I buy just once seat to begin with, its a gamble - if the flight has empty seats, Great! but if its sold out, then I will be horribly miserable. At least with SWA's refund policy, I don't have to worry about wasting my money if it turns out they flight was half empty.

It just seems silly that they would even need a "policy" - a truly large person would decide for themselves if they need extra room - wouldn't they?

OK - before everyone goes ballistic, I have a question: has anyone ever RESERVED 2 seats on another airline and only had to PAY for one? Do the other airlines provide this courtesy for fat people? Or does everyone just take their chances that the flight wont sell out? If you can do this let me know, and I'll gladly use that airline. Otherwise, I might consider flying SWA if I can possibly get a refund on the second seat. (up till now have only flown with delta....but haven't flown since I got TOO big -and right now, not enought $$ for 2 seats.)

Thanks for your attention on another long winded post......
RhaChaCha

[wbahn]

I finally heard back from SWA - back at the end of August but I was too busy with my dad's funeral to get it posted here and am just now getting around to it.

Remember how they said that they didn't take e-mail correspondence because they felt that their customers deserve "accurate, specific, personal, and professionally written answers"?

So I send them a letter (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?postid=414006#post414006) pointing out several specific glaring errors and ridiculous statements in the press release that was put out by their President and Chied Operating Officer. What do I get in return? A FORM LETTER telling me how the response has been so high that they can't give a personal response but that they want to assure me that my comments have been reviewed and taken into consideration. Then, in order to more fully explain their policy to me to answer any questions I might have, they sent me a hardcopy of the very same press release that I was writing to complain about!

I sure hope that their pilots and mechanics are more honest and professional than their public relations people!

[PJ in Miam]

When I was thin, I traveled for business on occasion.

When I was 'chunky', I traveled for business on occasion. But it wasn't much fun anymore.

When I was 'fat', I traveled for business on occasion. But it was MISERABLE. I would discreetly talk with ticket agents before boarding and ask if they could attempt to assign me next to an empty seat - or failing that, the aisle - so I would not make anybody else miserable too.

[Wish I'd realized they always have 'seat belt extensions' prior to spending quite some time trying to hide things under clothes or jacket so nobody would know I couldn't fit the seat belt on. Movement was difficult though, tray wouldn't go down, etc.]

First class fit me fine. Still, even first class seemed to get smaller over time, or maybe it depends on the airline.

When I was 'obese', I traveled for business on occasion. I bought two tickets, so I would not injure anybody else. Hey, I could use the tray on the seat next to me. I humorously wondered if I should tell them I expected a second dinner, too. Even my 6 year old wouldn't be filled up by what they offer. Then I realized that would only enforce someone's opinion about obesity being based on gluttony.

I was hoping, maybe, could I rent a wheelchair or something, would they have a place for that? Then I saw their wheelchairs that I guess people have to fly in. I am not sure I'd have fit comfortably in it even when I didn't consider myself fat. It had stiff arms, and in fact, was UNUSUALLY thin -- even for a chair. Apparently it had to fit down the aisle with plenty of room to spare, so looked about the width of the soda cart.

When I was 'morbidly obese', I quit flying.

----------

Now, I have spent a good portion of my life watching other people in planes. The amount of misery I have seen is pretty substantial. About 2% of it related to obese people.

I have seen perfectly normal people unable to fit in the seat of some airline planes - men, and not even huge men, just large boned sorts; or slightly obese people who simply have all of it in the hips/thighs proportionally, instead of in the stomach.

So.... in reality, it's not about being fat, but about being large. And it's not even about being large, but about being large in certain WAYS.... so it's okay to be long, but not wide, or wide on the top half, but not the bottom half.

I have flown and fit neatly into a seat only to have a tall person's knees digging into my back.

I have prepared to used my laptop computer only to feel so squished by the guy in front of me (esp if tall) 'barely reclining' that I didn't.

I have sat next to women and men with so much cologne I was nauseated. (God only knows what people with allergies do.)

I have sat next to screaming babies (and give babies their due -- it really does hurt their inner ears -- and I'm a mom, so I'm sympathetic -- but it's miserable anyway).

I have sat next to people who sneezed, hacked, lugie'd and spit through the entire flight. I've been sick, I know they had no choice at that moment, but I found this about as appetizing as somebody vomiting on my lap personally.

I have sincerely wondered, on attempting to use the toilet, how anybody taller than me (let alone larger) could manage.

----------

I think the reason this issue is so volatile is because people who are not fat are seeing it as a fat issue.

People who large are sparked by it, because in reality, this only represents a culture-wide issue. It actually digs into stored anger at a TON of things -- of which airlines are only one.

There is little alternative to planes that is not vastly less efficient, time-wise. More importantly, there is NO alternative when it comes to business, for example, and cross-country flights. "Boss, I'll be taking 3-4 days off to drive, attend the conference, take another 3-4 days off to drive back..."

According to federal stats, now something like 61% of the USA population is overweight or obese. OK, now call me curious, but the minute anything exceeds 50%, does it not become "more normal" than the other option?

There is not a non-obese person I know who would not LIKE to have a larger seat, and more space between rows. Even thin people are seriously inconvenience by tall people, or large shouldered people, wholly aside from obesity, and anybody over 5'10 surely wishes for someplace to put their knees.

The airlines are a collusive consortium of companies -- and in fact, "regional" monopolies, since who cares if there are 12 airline companies if only one goes from Place X to Place Z? So the question is, if an airline makes seating inconvenient or uncomfortable -- width is one aspect, but depth is another -- for the majority of the population, hmmmn, why would anybody use them? -- Oh! Because there are no options. That is, essentially, COLLUSION -- they are operating as a monopoly even when the companies are allegedly separate.

And in fact, since since the government is in control of the transportation industry in a big way -- it is not like a burger stand, there is a whole lot of government regulations and licenses so essentially, they determine "who" can offer an airline -- and since a MASSIVE quantity of our taxes go as a standard toward supporting the national transportation industries (except train, they have to beg for it yearly) --

Then essentially, if it's the government that controls and helps fund the industry, sets national standards etc., then the real bitch is actually with them. If 50+% of their population is overweight or obese -- if we add in, large-shouldered and over-5'10, the % skyrockets -- then should it not be part of their 'standards' for airlines that require accomodation?

It is not a business issue when the business is a national, government-subsidized (your tax dollars!), primary industry.

Eons ago, my company of the time had to pay a lot of money to revise our bathroom because it was (a) not large enough to allow someone in a wheelchair to do a 360' in it, and (b) the pipes under the sink weren't heavily taped to prevent burns from being a danger to people in wheelchairs.

We had three employees. None of them were in a wheelchair. The business was a PRIVATE (not government subsidized, primary) industry. Yet that was okay to make a standard. The reason it was a law is because if we did NOT have wheelchair capable ramps and bathrooms, employers would be likely to NOT HIRE anybody in a wheelchair.

Hence, if the government did not set standards to require ALL relevant industries to comply with such considerations, it would be their "tacit facilitation of open discrimination" by the industries themselves.

I don't see why this wouldn't be a similar issue.

----------

I cannot go to the movie theatre because I am so obese. The last time I went, to please my begging child, I had to sit in the aisle. Getting up was easier said than done. And yet, the vast majority of the time around here, a large% of the seats in the theatres remain empty. It's the same on planes -- sure, some flights may be filled to capacity, but most aren't. (Esp since 9/11.)

Now why would it be so BLEEPING difficult for them to put a few benches in the back? Hell, make 'em hard plastic, and hose 'em down, that's easy. Make 'em church pews. Who cares! It's not like they even have to TRY to make them comfortable -- they merely could try to make them POSSIBLE. I am hard pressed to imagine anybody complaining because a business went to extra trouble to create "sizeless seating" for those who need it and it wasn't comfortable enough. (Fat people would likely have to compete with teenagers, who'd want the back, dark row where they could sit on each other's laps. :-))

These (benches) would HAVE to be CHEAPER, it seems to me, than individualized padded slightly rocking seats with drink holders. It seems to me that in the movie theatre industry, a serious revision in their seating options would greatly increase their revenue, assuming they could avertise those options as having been added. (Like airplanes, theatres vary.)

Alas, since I never know, and find it humiliating not to mention miserable, I just don't go. I love movies. I used to see a movie a week if not more. I wonder how much money that industry - kvetching about video sales hurting them - has lost? If half the population is overweight at least - maybe some not so affected, but many are - what does that do to their business when they don't even make allowances for that?

I went to a theatre and there was a man in a wheelchair in the aisle. I thought, "Hmmmn. Now what if I found a robust fold-up chair, and brought it with me, and once the movie started (so, not like tons of people in the aisles) I unfolded it and sat in it?" I figured some gawky kid in a uniform would come tell me I was violating safety codes by clogging the aisle. Not that the guy in the wheelchair wasn't, mind you. I'm not suggesting wheelchair bound people not see movies, I'm suggesting there needs to be some options made by movie theatres -- just like anywhere else.

The women's clothing industry used to simply shun large size. Then one day they realized that women like me might just make good money, want clothes, and be willing to pay for them, and the quantity of overweight customers had vastly increased. (In fact, go into ANY business -- bank, DMV, etc. -- where there are many people and 'managers' (other than retail) and look at the women in management -- the vast majority are overweight -- a real testament to the power of stress to screw up metabolism.)

I suppose the market difference is that theatres and planes serve everyone, whereas large size stores serve only large size people. Still, the shopping mall serves everyone, but the Lane Bryant section (store) probably has one of the higher profit margins in there.

For that matter, ever tried the various public and retail bathrooms? Ever notice that the wheelchair bathroom is nearly always in use, and almost never by someone in a wheelchair?

For profit margins, everything gets smaller and smaller, while the population gets larger and larger.

----------

The reason that segments of our society fight bias to no avail is because we all allow the "divide and conquer" routine. Associations for women, certain racial groups, less-abled, etc. do not give a duck's butt about the other groups' problems, and as such, we all suffer, because none of the groups have enough leverage to accomplish what they would if everybody worked for *human* rights first, and considered the larger picture of what is practical for a whole society.

I think this issue will fail to find proper resolution if it is an issue about obesity. I think it needs to be clearly approached legally, by someone who's got the money or inspiration, as an issue about "majority population" "accessibility" (as the whole handicap, visually impaired, etc. etc. stuff is now called).

Any company that actually discriminates against -- by making uncomfortable or excluding (remember, height matters too in this one) -- a majority segment of the population, has that right -- but cannot receive FEDERAL FUNDING.

I don't think they should get our tax dollars as a primary industry. They are operating like a "private corporation" yet they are receiving the benefits of a national-primary industry.

I think that is where a court ruling should be aimed.

PJ

[Meadow]

PJ....I think you should send this article to a news paper where it can get the attention it deserves. You brought up some very good issues and did so in an appropriate manner. :thup:

Here is California, the theaters at least have taken a step forward. Although the theaters themselves have gotten smaller, the seating had taken a turn for the better. The arm rests raise allowing bench seating. Of course if the theater is sold out, there can be a problem, but if one is willing to wait a week or so before seeing the newest films then there is usually no problem. I use to dread going to the movies, now I enjoy it again.

I enjoyed reading your post, PJ, and again...I think it would be well worth sending into some papers. :)


Lark

[finatroope]

you might think different if you had to sit on 1/4 of an airline seat for 4.5 hrs because some 400lb slobs belly was hanging all over most of your seat if your ass hangs over on to the seat beside you then you just bought that seat, ya get mad about it use it as motivation to loose weight not only will you look better feel better but now it will save you money.

"We sell seats, and if you consume more than one seat, you have to buy more than one seat," said Beth Harbin, a Southwest spokeswoman. couldnt of said it better its business

[freydis]

> you might think different if you had to sit on 1/4 of an
> airline seat for 4.5 hrs because some 400lb slobs belly
> was hanging all over most of your seat if your ass
> hangs over on to the seat beside you then you just
> bought that seat, ya get mad about it use it as
> motivation to loose weight not only will you look better
> feel better but now it will save you money.

Considering how close I came to being a "400lb slob," I think you do us/them an injustice with that phrase. I worked very hard at dieting for a very very long time and could never lose till I found Atkins. That "400lb slob" may just not have found the answer yet and may be working harder than you at trying to lose weight. Plus, the "slob" thing - it's really difficult to look neat as a pin when you weigh that much, even if you're doing your best. Clothing designers don't do 400 lb people, slobs or otherwise.

As to the seat issue, you're right that business is business. I just happen to think that people who are in business should remember to be human, too.

[Lisa N]

Let's not also forget that the "400 lb. slob" sitting next to you just might be on steroids for a life-threatening condition such as asthma or some other necessary medication that caused them to gain all that weight and all the dieting in the world isn't going to help them lose it.
Let's also point out that the aforementioned slob is probably acutely aware of their size and isn't any more thrilled about it than you are and probably just as uncomfortable as you (even more if you count the sheer embarassment factor) and is trying desperately to keep their ass and belly from hanging all over your seat as you put it.
You assume, like many other people, that people who are obese are that way simply because they can't control what they put into their mouths or how much of it and all they need to do is eat less and everything will be wonderful and the world will be filled with slim people. Life may be like that in fantasy land, but not in the real world where the rest of us live.
Businsess may be business, but in most businesses customer service matters which means that you take into consideration the needs of the majority of your customers. Since at least 60% of Americans are overweight with a significant number of that 60% being classified as obese, it would seem to me better business to provide better accomidations for what would be the majority of your customers, but since the almighty dollar seems to speak louder than customer needs when it comes to the airlines (bigger seats mean less passengers and therefore less money per flight even though it would make everyone a happier and more satisfied customer), I doubt we'll see any such accomidations any time soon.
Finally, I hope that should you ever find yourself in a situation where a little compassion is warranted, you are shown more than you demonstrated here.

[wbahn]

Originally posted by finatroope

"We sell seats, and if you consume more than one seat, you have to buy more than one seat," said Beth Harbin, a Southwest spokeswoman. couldnt of said it better its business

As has been pointed out previously, this is a red herring. Do you go to an airline and go, "Yes, I'm in the market for a seat, do you have one in blue? Oh, I don't care where it's going, I just want a blue seat." No! An airline is in the business of selling transportation from point A to point B. That is the only reason that anyone does business with them. Southwest threw out that red herring to make their ridiculous claim that if they replaced nine normal seats with six extrawide seats that everyone would have to pay twice the air fare sound more reasonable.

Let's change the argument just a bit. The crux of the current argument is that sinse the airline has chosen to use a particular size seat, that it is reasonable and fair for them to require someone that doesn't fit within that seat size that they chose to pay for two seats when they are only asking the airline to transport one person from City A to City B. Everyone keeps latching onto the point that it is unreasonable for the airline to be expected to install seats, at the same price (or even with a marginal premium) that accommodate larger people. After all, the airline is in business to maximize their profit and having fewer total seats works against this.

Fine.

Now let's use that same argument for Airline X. They commission someone to design seats that are adjustable such that the smaller a person is the less room they take up. The basic fare is for an infant and if you take up more room than an infant you pay for multiple seats. In this way a small woman might pay three times what you would pay for an infant and a normal sized man might pay five times. An heavily obese person might pay seven or eight times or even more. Isn't this a nice, fair way of dealing with the problem? And every last argument made in defense of SWA's policy is every bit as applicable to this case.

But, do you think the public would accept an arrangement where by a normal, but large, person always had to pay quite a bit more than a very small person?

What if Airline X came out with a policy that said that tickets cost so many dollars per pound of body weight. That's a defensible position and we have no problem accepting that if we want Airline X to transport our box of Chrismas presents to St. Louis. But would people feel it a fair policy for the Joneses, who are tiny, to get to travel to Hawaii for a fraction of the husky Smiths that are setting right in front of them? And how about companies? Will they be expected to ignore the costs of having salespeople that are normal and perfectly healthy-sized when they could have hired nothing by small, tiny people and saved a lot of money? Should they be open to discrimation lawsuits if they fail to hire a husky 160 pound woman in favor of a less qualified scrawny 120 pound man? If so, then why? If it is okay for an airline to charge its customers differently based on size because it has a marginal (and it really is marginal, regardless of what SWA's fuzzy math asserts, as has already been debunked) impacts on their profits, then why shouldn't a company be allowed to choose who its employees are based on the marginal impact on profits that those employees have as a result of their size? And if this is okay, they why can't companies be free to look at all factors that have marginal impacts on profit in deciding whether to hire someone - such things as their health history, their choice of recreational activities, how many children they have, whether they are women of childbearing age?

[liz175]

I recently flew with my husband and two kids. I'm the only one who is fat; my husband is average weight and the kids are skinny (although my son is 6'3" so he takes up some space). Southwest was slightly cheaper than the competition, but I bought us tickets on another airline because I didn't want to risk being embarrassed. I wonder how much money they have lost with this policy? We wouldn't have taken up any extra room even if I took up more than a seat, since I could have sat in a row with two of my family members. Anyway, on the airline we flew I fit into a normal coach seat with both armrests down, so it wasn't even an issue. However, who wants to risk being embarrassed? No matter how much weight I lose, I can't imagine going back to flying Southwest, and I used to fly them several times a year.

[Lisa N]

You know....seats must be getting smaller. I remember flying when I weighed 260 lbs on my 5' 3" frame and didn't have any trouble fitting into a seat even on a commuter flight AND getting my seatbelt on. Yes, I was a bit cramped but I wasn't hanging over into anybody else's seat. I haven't flown in several years, but from what I'm hearing I'd be willing to bet that I'd be just as cramped now even 75 lbs. lighter as I was then.

[Rosalie]

RE: You know....seats must be getting smaller. I remember flying when I weighed 260 lbs on my 5' 3" frame and didn't have any trouble fitting into a seat even on a commuter flight AND getting my seatbelt on. Yes, I was a bit cramped but I wasn't hanging over into anybody else's seat.

Lisa N, funny you mention the very thing I was wondering about. The last time I flew it was on a US Airways transcontinental flight. At the time I was 180 lbs and 5 ft 3in. tall. I had to adjust the seatbelt to the longest length to fit around me, the tray table fit almost but not all the way down, and my upper leg did encroach a bit onto my 18 year old son's seat. Now I will be the first to admit that 180 is too heavy for a person of my height, but it would seem that the seat was not designed with the size of the passenger in mind, but perhaps with the idea of maximizing the number of seats in the plane. :thdown: JMHO - YMMV!

[PoofieD]

I don't think they are the same size that they were when I first traveled on a plane by myself in 1978.
Yes I was a little thing then...but it wasn't just sitting down but how the seats looked to me this last time.
I am sure there is someone to tell us how wrong we are.
Nedra

[hollypc]

What about the safety issue?
If you have all these 400 pound people on a plane what about the weight factor.

Maybe they should have to buy 2 seats so the weight of the plan can balance out.

[PoofieD]

When is there ever a planeful of 400 pound people??
I mean ever??
when I got on the plane this last time and I was uncomfortable there were men bigger than I was and I can't fathom how they could possibly have been comfortable in those seats. I wasn't four hundred. I wasn't three hundred.
Its rare a 400 pound person will put themselves through the agony and embarassement of traveling.
Hop around the board. Find out how much fun it is.
If a plane can't take one or two people, which would be the most at any given time at that weight.. If I were you I would think about getting a new airline.

[hollypc]

Originally posted by PoofieD
When is there ever a planeful of 400 pound people??
I mean ever??
when I got on the plane this last time and I was uncomfortable there were men bigger than I was and I can't fathom how they could possibly have been comfortable in those seats. I wasn't four hundred. I wasn't three hundred.
Its rare a 400 pound person will put themselves through the agony and embarassement of traveling.
Hop around the board. Find out how much fun it is.
If a plane can't take one or two people, which would be the most at any given time at that weight.. If I were you I would think about getting a new airline.


I was making a point that's all.

My friend travels with me all the time and she has to be about 350. She doesn't consider herself to be put through agony nor embarassed. She is a big girl and if someone doesn't like it move over.

I'm really just not feeling your statement up there about a 400 pound person.

People are people no matter what size they are. If people are embarrassed and such, I would say work on your self confidence.
My friend leads the same life I do, even better than I do.

[Angelica]

This might be slightly off topic, but to prove the point that Southwest Airlines is discriminatory towards overweight people, I would submit the following.

There are "seat-belt extenders" sold at specitality stores that are used to extend the lap belts on planes for someone who cannot get the belt around them. Southwest Airlines has removed their lap belts and replaced them with a type of belt that the "extender" cannot attach too. In Addition to their mean-spritied "policy" requiring an overweight person to purchase two tickets. Its obvious - SWA doesn't want overweight people flying their Airline. Lets give them their way - I am more than happy to watch them bankrupt.

I can tell you that when my father was a poilot, the seats were generally made to accomidate (read: Not in comfort) a passenger up too 375 pounds, by average measurements.

Traveling on Southwest is like traveling in an animal trailer. Load em up, sit em down, and throw some peanuts at them. My father was a pilot and I still retain flying rights for Southwest, but, I would rather pay the 250.00 for American Airlines than the 20.00 for a seat on the cattle plane.

[eva123]

I am out of date but this definitely sucks. On the other hand, I would really LOVE to understand what prompted such a move. I'll do some research on the web.

It is a little bit like bouncers outside a night club, who have the "right" to let people in or deny them entry. It is not always based on the clothes you wear, more like ly so on whether they like your face or not. You always need an excuse to do stuff.

Sorry, i believe you are too big, you need to purchase two tickets! It is inappropriate in the sense that ...in the eyes of their employees...what would their judgement be based on..

Has anyone heard how this has been implemented so far please? I am curious to know. Especially in the States where everyone gets sued for anything... how would someone tell you "sorry, buy 1 for the price of....2"

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by eva123
On the other hand, I would really LOVE to understand what prompted such a move.

Economics. It's not hard to understand. Smaller seats = more people per flight. More people per flight = more profit. The plane is already up there flying, so the overhead for the fuel and the salaries for the pilots and stewardesses remains the same. If you can fit more people on a plane, you raise your profit margin.

[eva123]

yes, but come on!! Everyone should LOOK the same or suffer (accept) the consequences..

It is not some newly discovered wisdom. Businesses are in business to make profit..

Were they (silly question given the situation we are in today) in big big big trouble?? OK, I take this one back. Let me try this one: Were in deeper doodoo than the rest of the airline industry?

Did they have some press conference where they stated those facts? gosh, I wish I had seen all that.
Thanks <b>LisaN</b>

[Racerx2468]

As a small biusness owner I know how hard it is to make a profit and that is what the airlines are in biusness for in the first place.

In america the name of the game is make a profit or go under.

If we are on a busy flight full of passangers and we cannot fit into one coach seat i think the airline should charge extra for us taking up that extra space. After all that is the product they are selling us, for a price we get a ticket that reserves a small section of the plane for us to sit in and if we take up 2-3 seats for the price of 1 seat that does not seem fair.

The airline should have a clear policy made known prior to the ticket sale and after that it is up to us the customer to either pay the price, go to another airline, drive ourselves, go by train or go on a boat.

[PoofieD]

The seats have gotten smaller.
Period.
Perhaps the airlines would do better to make a few rows of oversized seats and then charge say 1/2 again as much to have one of those seats.
There has to be better answers to this question than allow some ticket taker to be the judge on who or who should't pay ore
next time it could be yourself..
Because if its all personal judgement.. maybe they just won't "like' you.
But give american the chance to choose while your trying to make money..and your going to make it that much easier.

[slack32]

Sometimes it is a good thing.

Well, I have to admit, as a passenger on any public transportation you are at the luck of the draw when it comes to who may be around you. Having said that.... I recently flew on a major airline. My seatmate was quite sizable. She did in fact buy two tickets- and it was a good thing because there would have been no way that she would have fit into one. The seats are designed for 'average' people, whatever that means. many memebers of my family are quite tall, and leg room is a problem for them on planes. I know that if they can, they get into the first class section to help their situations. But- they choose to do it.

If I was so large as to not fit into a seat, I would purchase two seats- for my own comfort, and for my seat-mate's sake.

[Paleoanth]

The seats HAVE gotten smaller. I am five foot tall and I feel squished in those seats, even at my weight. If I get an isle seat, I invariably give it up to someone in my row who is taller and/or bigger than I am. If I am feeling squished, I can imagine how anyone else would feel.

I understand that they want to get as many seats as possible on the planes- however many airlines are still going out of business.

You know how I choose an airline? Good customer service.

[jeanyyy]

Hmmm I am wondering if anybody heard what happened in the suit by the 2 large women who wanted to share 3 seats and were denied?

[gawdess]

I smell a lawsuit!

[lburnikell]

Its disgusting and degrading

[mariejoe]

The seats have gotten smaller.
Period.
Perhaps the airlines would do better to make a few rows of oversized seats and then charge say 1/2 again as much to have one of those seats.


Okay, the seats have gotten smaller. They wanna make more money, and are greedy. :thdown:
Those oversized seats would work, but they'll never do it.

At the risk of getting beat up by everyone, sorry. But I don't want to be the person NEXT to the oversize person who is taking up part of MY seat, that I payed for. Where are my rights, when I can't move my arm or shift my body because of the large person next to me, whether overweight or overtall??????

[tinaninea]

I'm confused. Do they think that someone they don't believe will be comfy in 1 seat will be more comfy in 2. After all, everyone loves sitting in the middle of 2 chairs with their turned up edges going up their crack. Maybe it shouldn't be a judgement call for anyone but the passenger.

[Marieshops]

I don't agree with the way the airlines are handling this issue, but in all fairness if my wide self takes up not only my seat but half of my neighbors then I do need 2 seats. Yes, it would be great if airlines, movies, sporting events etc all had nice wide comfy seats that any size person could fit in but that isn't the way it is. These people make their money on selling space. I do not have the right to overlap into someone elses space that they paid for, no matter how nice I am. This is one of the reasons I am so happy LCing with Atkins. I went to an arena football game the other night with my little boy and I did actually fit in the seat. It was great. Take care and good luck flying.
Marie

[Frederick]

Well, things are changing. This weekend I went for a movie at the Sony Metreon Center in San Francisco. I was shocked at how wide the seats were when I sat down. They're now wide enough to fit just about anyone comfortably.

So, to brighter days for all,

Frederick

[RosaAlta]

The tiny size of coach airline seats poses an actual health risk to most people. I don't have the facts in front of me right now, but I know that the longer the flight, the greater a person's risk of developing life-threatening blood clots in his/her legs. I had heard this before, but I was warned again before I flew this past January because at 5 months pregnant it was a bigger risk for me than most.

The advice I've read on how to deal with this is to get up and move about the plane every hour or so. (Ha! Do these people actually fly?) You can also do a few small exercises while seated to increase blood flow. This problem has nothing to do with being overweight.

As for the overweight=two seats issue, I agree that this policy is rude and anything this subjective will eventually be challenged in court. I'm a late joiner to this thread, but way back at the beginning someone asked for information on the ADA and obesity. If you are still interested, send me a PM. I work in Human Resources and I can tell you all about it. The short answer is that obesity is not yet a "protected class" in the way that race and sex are, although I believe that medical conditions caused by obesity would fall under the ADA if they substantially limited a life activity.

[korry1977]

really odd, since I thought SouthWest Airlines was turning a decent profit...

(compared to the other airlines...)

[korry1977]

maybe they should just jettison the tons of stale peanuts instead :lol:

LOL,
Korry

[Damien]

Actually,

On some regional airlines in the Phillipines they have the system
that you have a total weight allowance, for yourself AND your luggage!
First the luggage goes on the scale,and then You!

Funny system!

:lol:

[BlitzedAng]

This turned my stomach and brought tears to my eyes.I guess people are seen for their walllets and not feelings theese days to some company.

[fabshelly]

Think for just one minute about the person who is sitting next to a large person on that plane. Should they just ignore the fact that thier nieghbors girth is taking up part of what little space they are given on a flight? While I agree the airlines should make larger seats to accomodate big people, its also not fair to the slimmer community that nothing was being done to resolve the problem they face when a person of size is seated beside them on the plane.

No, I agree, and I'm no Calista Flockhart myself. If I'm big enough to take up two seats, I'm willing to pay for them. I hope my days of being turned away from amusement park rides are over now, but, yeah, that was really embarassing. I just flew from California a few months ago and the person next to me should have had two seats. I had to keep my arm squeezed into my side the whole time and lean because her body extended about six inches into my already-tiny Hawaiian Airlines seat. I was really uncomfortable. I didn't say anything to anyone, because there but for the grace of God and Owsley Bear Stanley go I, but it really was a miserable flight for me. There were no empty seats on the plane, or I would have moved.

[Jonahsafta]

Im sorry to offend but I MUST say. I travel a LOT... for business AND pleasure, sitting next to someone who takes both their seat and a lot of mine isnt fair to ME...I have been squished a lot.....it makes travel horrible.....look, if I take up 2 seats then I should pay for 2 seats....I agree that the seats dont easily seat someone 300 lbs and over but please dont
crush me!!!! I have some rights TOO!

[AmoryBlain]

Joneshafta, I'm sorry to tread on the feelings of people here, but I agree with you. I'm part of a military couple and fly three times per month. Within the last year, I've flown Continental, Southwest, Delta, United, AirTran, ATA, American, and JetBlue. Several times I've been on an Express Jet for short connecting flights. I am 5'10" and typically ask for an aisle or window seat, but I've spent MANY a flights utterly uncomfortable and squished painfully against my seat rest or window due to a larger neighbor. I've literally had a larger man's right thigh covering part of my left, and his shoulder squeezing against my breast. I've been next to a larger woman who put up her armrest and LITERALLY SAT ON ME. Now, I used be a larger person myself and never would have DREAMED of imposing on another passenger in this manner without purchasing a seperate ticket. While I do disagree with Southwest having their employees make the judgement call for two seats, I believe the "average" sized passenger has just as much of a right to comfort as does the larger sized passenger. I paid just as much for my seat as anyone else, and I am entitled to that space without someone else sitting on a portion of my seat. It's faulty logic to compare a crying baby, someone doused in perfume, or someone who is sick sitting next to you as the same as an obese person. The baby, the smelly individual, and sick individual may be unpleasant seatmates, but unlike the obese person, they aren't physically sitting on the person next to them.

Flying in and out of Colorado Springs, Chicago, Denver, and Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta on a regular basis provides me with a great snapshot of the airline industry. You don't get to choose the person you sit next to. I've been infuriated by having to be pressed next to another person's flesh for four hours at a time. I paid for my seat and shouldn't have to put up my armrest or contort myself into a ball to accomodate the larger person. Larger people have a legitimate gripe--and I empathize, I really do-- but so do average people sitting next to them.

[Bexicon]

Must participate in 3 yr old thread resurrection! :thup:

This is not about greedy airlines versus the poor obese passengers. I will not cry a river if an obese person is no longer allowed to spill a large part of their body into my seat because they don't want to buy an extra one. It's darn rude. We pay the same amount for the same tiny cramped space. If you need more space, it is for sale -- you don't simply appropriate the neighbor's while you whine about how small the seats are. Sheesh.

[Nancy LC]

Wow, revival of an old thread.

I've sat next to guys who were just enormous, not from fat really, but they had huge shoulders and chests and infringed on my area. Should bodybuilders also have to pay for 2 seats?

[SunnyCarol]

There was an airline crash a few months ago (a small commuter jet) that was caused by the fact that an inordinate amount of passengers were excessively large. There's more to it than just discomfort for the person who is sitting beside you. A plane can only carry so much weight. If you weigh as much as two people and are big enough to take up most of two seats, then you should pay the price.

[CrysAnne]

It's such an unfortunate thing. On my flight recently I was amazed at how many truly large people were attempting to fit themselves into modest-sized airline seats. That is not a criticism; I felt badly for them because I knew they felt conspicuous and perhaps even ashamed---I also felt bad for others (like myself) who were physically inconvenienced by the much larger passengers. It was lose-lose for everyone involved.

This is an interesting topic because it begs the question: what are we as a society supposed to do about this? Companies and manufacturers (airlines, auto, theaters) are already enlarging seats to accommodate the growing girth of our population. For whatever reason I don't feel that's the answer. It just helps us mask the problem: we're an obese nation and obesity is illness. We have to heal ourselves, not accommodate our potentially fatal illness and pretend it's not happening.

I don't know what the answer is. So many people struggle mightily with losing weight (as I myself do---as we all do), but there are real financial, medical and practical considerations to be made on all sides.

It's just sad.

[relliott1]

I agree with SW's (and other airlines) policy personally, although I do think it should be administered differently.

I have personal experience with this - one of my first memories of flying commercially (I was about 8 or 9 at the time) was boarding the plane, finding my seat, and being confronted with a woman who literally DID take up both of the seats. I could not have fit there if I tried. The plane was pretty full and they had to finagle to fit me and my family somewhere else, and that meant that my mom, brother and I were all in very seperate sections of the plane, which scared me half to death since it was my first time a big plane. This person had NOT paid for both of those seats because one of them was very clearly mine according to my ticket. I don't know if she was ultimately asked to pay for both seats, but according to the situation she SHOULD have been IMO because she was actually using two full seats.

I don't think it is right to let counter reps make this determination pre-boarding, and I don't think it is feasible to have a weight restriction since people at the same weights can be built very differently and so not everyone at 350 or 400 (or whatever a pre-determined weight restriction might be) will take up more than one seat. But I DO think that it is appropriate that if it becomes apparent once a passenger has boarded that they are taking up two seats to the point that another passenger can not reasonably utilize that second seat, then they should be asked to pay for the second seat. I felt this way even when I was heavy, and I still feel this way now (and I had been heavy for a lot more if my adult years than I have now been "normal sized"). Realistically, with a restriction like this, even though a large percentage of the population is considered "obese", a much smaller portion would fall in to this category.

JMO
Robin

[CrysAnne]

But I DO think that it is appropriate that if it becomes apparent once a passenger has boarded that they are taking up two seats to the point that another passenger can not reasonably utilize that second seat, then they should be asked to pay for the second seat.

But that would stall the flight, almost every flight. You'd have flight attendants making that call right before take-off; think how volatile that situation would be! I think the boarding agents are the only way to go; that way you're not applying some broad brush in terms of a weight limit, but eye-balling it to the best of your ability, pre-flight. I see no other way, if that's the way they want to go.

[4beans4me]

Maybe they should have seat models at the boarding counters (or in the general vacinity). No different than most major amusement parks. There is a seat model to try out before you even get in line.

[CrysAnne]

It's probably good to note that those seats can run REALLY small. Because of fewer flights they are piling more and more people onto airlines to increase their profit. Even for someone normal sized, it is a tight fit.

[fabshelly]

Wow, revival of an old thread.

I've sat next to guys who were just enormous, not from fat really, but they had huge shoulders and chests and infringed on my area. Should bodybuilders also have to pay for 2 seats?

You bet.

....but I don't want to be the person to tell them that... :help:

[Jonahsafta]

Ok I fly again tomorrow.....I admit to hoping that a normal sized person is seated next to me..or a larger person with two seats purchased. When I flew last week, I noticed passengers glancing nervously at large sized passengers...Ive been a large sized passenger...and I still agree that if you dont fit in one seat you need to buy 2.

[locarbbarb]

This is such a touchy subject, but maybe one solution would be a 'measuring space' like they have at rides for height requirements.

It could be like one of those walk-through metal detectors. If you can walk through the space, you can fit in one seat. If you can't fit through the space, you need to buy two tickets, and you get two seats. Simple.

It accomodates tall, wide, muscular, overweight, whatever. No judgement-calls by ticket agents, no embarrassment (hopefully). It would just be standard procedure.

And everyone would be comfortable. We pay more for larger sized clothing, why not airline seats?

[Frederick]

In my view, the issue really isn’t whether or not a very large person requiring two seats should have to pay for both. If a person is too large to fit in a single seat, then he or she should pay for two. How can anyone dispute that? A person who has paid for a single seat has every right and expectation to fully expect the space paid for to be entirely his or hers for the duration of the flight.

The people here who are arguing against this reasoning aren’t doing so based on reason, but rather emotion. I can understand. No one however large, small, smart, dumb or different should ever have to endure being humiliated in public in front of others. There can never be a justification for the sort of uncouth, crass, and unsavory behavior or policies, which results in direct embarrassment opening others to widespread ridicule. I think this is the real reason why some argue against this policy. There is no argument based on the merits that if you require two seats, then you should have two, irrespective of whether you or the airline company absorbs the cost. The problem is the manner in which this policy is enforced subjects a segment of the people to intense mockery belittling them in front of others in the open public. This is unacceptable, and should never be tolerated under any circumstances.

I have no solutions. The seats were designed in an era when height and weight parameters were vastly different. All I know is any solutions subjecting people to humiliation is not the answer.

Like anyone else here, I feel aggrieved when having to squish in between two persons taking part of the space that I had paid for in full. It certainly isn’t pleasant, at all. It also isn’t fair. However, when I take a moment of pause, I realize the large person feels much worse knowing that he or she is the cause of the my predicament being the subject of derision, scorn, and the source of amusement being the butt countless jokes for the entirety of the flight.

Not sure about you, but being squished for a few hours engendering sympathy from my fellow passengers appear to be the far lesser of two evils.

With kindest regards,

Frederick

[Mossling]

A different angle: my sisters (both big women, as am I) actually bought three seats for a flight to Ireland--and the airline personnel kept trying to put someone in the third seat. "Oh, no one's sitting there." "I'm sorry, we paid for 3 seats and have the tickets to prove it." "But no one's SITTING there!"

So, even though they did exactly what they should have, they STILL got hassled. Something's very wrong with this picture.

[TarHeel]

I'm a big fan of Southwest Air....recently booked an online round trip ticket from Tampa Bay to Manchester, NH for $137.50 including all fees and taxes. That's really hard to beat.

If you can't fit in the one seat, booking two tickets is still going to be an incredible deal compared with United, etc.

I can handle being a bit squished on a short trip. Just so long as you don't want to talk to me for the whole trip about something boring.

kay

[tamarian]

A different angle: my sisters (both big women, as am I) actually bought three seats for a flight to Ireland--and the airline personnel kept trying to put someone in the third seat. "Oh, no one's sitting there." "I'm sorry, we paid for 3 seats and have the tickets to prove it." "But no one's SITTING there!".

I posted a link earlier in the thread about two women who were refused to board with 3 tickets. A Southwest employee said they each must buy 2 tickets, even though 3 seats was ample enough, and not bothering anyone else, since the side only had 3 seats.

So there's more to it than our lucky, thin friends here think, based on the same statement being repeated every other page :)

Wa'il

[Angeline]

I posted a link earlier in the thread about two women who were refused to board with 3 tickets. A Southwest employee said they each must buy 2 tickets, even though 3 seats was ample enough, and not bothering anyone else, since the side only had 3 seats.

So there's more to it than our lucky, thin friends here think, based on the same statement being repeated every other page :)

Wa'il


That sounds more like robot-like idiocy than anything else to me. It reminds of a story I heard years ago from a woman I worked with. She went to a restaurant that offered a "combo" consisting of a burger, fries and a soft drink. She asked for the combo but specified no drink. Well the braindead robot behind the counter was very insistant that she must take the soft drink because it was part of the combo. Finally after realizing she wouldn't get her food until she agreed, the woman took the drink and poured it out in front of the employee.

Obviously the Southwest employee simply was not using her walnut-sized brain.

[CrysAnne]

The problem is the manner in which this policy is enforced subjects a segment of the people to intense mockery belittling them in front of others in the open public. This is unacceptable, and should never be tolerated under any circumstances.

You've hit the nail on the head. How mortifying.

[CrysAnne]

Ok I fly again tomorrow.....I admit to hoping that a normal sized person is seated next to me..or a larger person with two seats purchased. When I flew last week, I noticed passengers glancing nervously at large sized passengers...Ive been a large sized passenger...and I still agree that if you dont fit in one seat you need to buy 2.

I notice that too. For whatever reason my recent trip South was packed with an inordinantly large number of obese people. I felt bad for them as they came down the aisle; they looked sheepish and some people seemed clearly unhappy to be placed next to them.

Ugh. It's kind of a bad moment for everyone, I think.

[Angeline]

I like locarbbarb's idea of a measuring space. This would eliminate the guess work and arbitrary decision. They could even have it behind closed doors. The airline employee could politely ask the customer to step inside a room and thus avoid them the embarassement of "failing" the test in front of everyone. It would still be embarassing but not as much. Afterall....large people know they are large.....usually.

Sure, the best solution would be to have extra wide seats what would accomodate everyone comfortably, but that would mean a huge hike in price for everyone and how fair is that.

[potatofree]

If you can walk through the space, you can fit in one seat. If you can't fit through the space, you need to buy two tickets, and you get two seats. Simple.

Why not just put us through a cattle chute?

I'd just grease myself up and have someone wave a doughnut in front of me. I'd GET through.... :lol:

[AmoryBlain]

Originally posted by Tamarian
So there's more to it than our lucky, thin friends here think, based on the same statement being repeated every other page

Actually, if one would consider me "thin," "LUCK" has NOTHING to do with it. Not if you consider three years of ultra-strict Atkins, chronic exercising, and no cheating to be "luck." I think some of the "lucky, thin" people here giving their comments provide a really unique perspective; considering this is a weight-loss forum (hey, you're forum founder, you already know that :)), the "thin" people giving their opinions were once those same obese people trying to squeeze into airline seats. We know how it feels on BOTH ends of the spectrum. Like Frederick, I don't have a solution. However, I do know it feels a helluva lot better to slip into an airline seat at 153lbs. than it does to squeeze in at 5'10" and 216lbs. Unfortunately, whether you are the "lucky, thin" person in the seat or the larger seatmate, both seats are equally uncomfortable.

It's amazing, really. Either you're embarrassed because you're the obese person encroaching on another person's paid space, or you're the "lucky, thin" person who is embarrassed for the obese person crowding your seat.

[tamarian]

Actually, if one would consider me "thin," "LUCK" has NOTHING to do with it. Not if you consider three years of ultra-strict Atkins, chronic exercising, and no cheating to be "luck." I think some of the "lucky, thin" people here giving their comments provide a really unique perspective; considering this is a weight-loss forum (hey, you're forum founder, you already know that :)), the "thin" people giving their opinions were once those same obese people trying to squeeze into airline seats. We know how it feels on BOTH ends of the spectrum. Like Frederick, I don't have a solution. However, I do know it feels a helluva lot better to slip into an airline seat at 153lbs. than it does to squeeze in at 5'10" and 216lbs. Unfortunately, whether you are the "lucky, thin" person in the seat or the larger seatmate, both seats are equally uncomfortable.

It's amazing, really. Either you're embarrassed because you're the obese person encroaching on another person's paid space, or you're the "lucky, thin" person who is embarrassed for the obese person crowding your seat.

You seem to have taken my post as personally addressed to you, while I don't know who you are. At 200 lbs as a before weight, you may not encounter such problems with Southwest. I personally have not been on Southwest.

The luck part is there, and has nothing to do with weight. It's how you strike the employee and how they classify you into thin or huge. If s/he thinks you're big for their taste, your penalized regardless of any common sense, and regardless of Atkins or Jenny Craig.

But if you think those two women need to purhase 4 tickets instead of 3, and they must be separated into different sides of the plane, then fine, I'll respect your opinion, even if it doesn't make sense. :)

Wa'il

[AmoryBlain]

Tamarian, I didn't take your post personally, I merely used myself as an example to fit into your generalization. I also never mentioned the two women who need to purchase four tickets instead of three. I also think my opinion makes perfect sense and is perfectly valid. :)

[relliott1]

I think that the idea of two larger passengers purchasing three seats to share is a great solution, and no I don't think they should have been made to purchase four by SWA. However, I think that was more an issue with a low-level employee not feeling empowered enough to make a policy exception than anything else. Had that been me behind the counter, I would have readily agreed to it. Since SWA states that enforcing the policy is at the discretion of the employee it seems to me that allowing the ladies to purchase three tickets would have been acceptable to the company, but some people just don't feel they have the authority to waiver from the stated "policy" even when the intent of that policy is being met.

Robin

[CrysAnne]

Tamarian, I didn't take your post personally, I merely used myself as an example to fit into your generalization. I also never mentioned the two women who need to purchase four tickets instead of three. I also think my opinion makes perfect sense and is perfectly valid. :)

agreed agreed agreed

[ItsTheWooo]

Actually, if one would consider me "thin," "LUCK" has NOTHING to do with it. Not if you consider three years of ultra-strict Atkins, chronic exercising, and no cheating to be "luck." I think some of the "lucky, thin" people here giving their comments provide a really unique perspective; considering this is a weight-loss forum (hey, you're forum founder, you already know that :)), the "thin" people giving their opinions were once those same obese people trying to squeeze into airline seats. We know how it feels on BOTH ends of the spectrum. Like Frederick, I don't have a solution. However, I do know it feels a helluva lot better to slip into an airline seat at 153lbs. than it does to squeeze in at 5'10" and 216lbs. Unfortunately, whether you are the "lucky, thin" person in the seat or the larger seatmate, both seats are equally uncomfortable.

It's amazing, really. Either you're embarrassed because you're the obese person encroaching on another person's paid space, or you're the "lucky, thin" person who is embarrassed for the obese person crowding your seat.


At 5'10 an 216 lbs you were just barely in the obese category, I believe that's a BMI of 31. You really have no idea what it is like to be obese in the way people who can't fit in one seat are obese. Trust me: it's a LOT different when your BMI is morbildy obese than it is when you are just "kinda obese".

[ItsTheWooo]

As on busses, have a few seats that are designed larger for special needs passengers. These seats would cost maybe slightly more than normal sized seats. Using them wouldn't seem as unfair and humiliating IMO.



BTW, just so you know, this issue has nothing to do with fat people. As for the rest of the seats, they need to be expanded somewhat. Let's be honest: those seats were too small and cramped even when people were thinner. Fat people are being used as a scapegoat to justify why the airlines are cramming too many seats in airplanes, so as to avoid dealing with the real issue (here's a hint: it has to do with $$$MONEY$$$).


Ah, fatty: you make such a convenient scapegoat, because the brainwashed american slave has been trained to hate and/or fear nothing more than the threat spiritual obesity. Once again, the moral decay of fat is causing yet more problems... seeping in, not unlike the extra flesh of an obese passenger cramped next to us. (Stop stealing MY seat! Pay for two! Fair is fair! The problem isn't the cheapo seats, it's the fat all around us, dirtying us, taking too much and producing too little!)

Sh*t, I bet cigarettes could become more tolerable to society, if only they could find a way to promote the notion that fatness equals quitting smoking and vice versa.
...oh, wait...

Yep, they pretty much got all their bases covered on this one. If you want to sully a thing, or idea, or cause, or product...associate it with fatness. Industry never tires of exploiting obese prejudice to their advantage. Sometimes I am ashamed to be human.

[AmoryBlain]

Originally posted by ItstheWoo
At 5'10 an 216 lbs you were just barely in the obese category, I believe that's a BMI of 31. You really have no idea what it is like to be obese in the way people who can't fit in one seat are obese. Trust me: it's a LOT different when your BMI is morbildy obese than it is when you are just "kinda obese".

I wasn't arguing the definition of obesity. I was merely stating it's easier to fly without an extra sixty pounds on my frame. As far as not knowing what it "feels like to be obese" that's irrelevant. Embarrassment is universal.

[kyrasdad]

At 5'10 an 216 lbs you were just barely in the obese category, I believe that's a BMI of 31. You really have no idea what it is like to be obese in the way people who can't fit in one seat are obese. Trust me: it's a LOT different when your BMI is morbildy obese than it is when you are just "kinda obese".

*Nod*

I'm technically obese today and still need to lose weight, but the world is radically different than it was 100 pounds ago. It's an amazing difference.

[CrysAnne]

As on busses, have a few seats that are designed larger for special needs passengers..."

I like this idea, actually. There may be some application problems---fat person in question doesn't realize he or she needs to pay more for bigger seat; counter person asks person to pay higher seat price based on eyeballing size of person, etc. But it's a start, maybe.

As for the rest of your statement, I disagree. I really don't think it's about making fat people scapegoats, but rather being fair to customers, all the way around. I think it's important to differentiate between the problem itself and the resulting humiliation/agitation it causes. One flows from the other but they are not the same thing.

Ultimately, if I pay for my seat, I should be able to sit in my seat without having someone else occupy the seat with me. That's just common sense, and doesn't have to be an indictment of anybody or any company.

[SunnyCarol]

I posted a link earlier in the thread about two women who were refused to board with 3 tickets. A Southwest employee said they each must buy 2 tickets, even though 3 seats was ample enough, and not bothering anyone else, since the side only had 3 seats.

Wa'il

That's the most insane logic I've seen in a while! They bought the entire row--what more did they want?

Sunny!

[Frederick]

BTW, just so you know, this issue has nothing to do with fat people. As for the rest of the seats, they need to be expanded somewhat. Let's be honest: those seats were too small and cramped even when people were thinner. Fat people are being used as a scapegoat to justify why the airlines are cramming too many seats in airplanes, so as to avoid dealing with the real issue (here's a hint: it has to do with $$$MONEY$$$).

In a free enterprise system, a for profit business operates in an arena where other companies are aggressively competing for the same business. As a result, certain measures are taken, such as lowering equipment cost, increasing volume, and rescaling production capacity.

Placing as many passengers in a given flight results in higher profits, especially since each flight has a designated fixed cost. It isn't about blaming the obese, but maximizing profit to compete with other companies vying for the same share of the pie.

As a society, we embrace this system since free enterprise drives a company to compete making it's operations more efficient leading to lower prices for each of us. The price we pay for an airline seat is dictated by supply and demand by market forces--nothing more, and nothing less.

So, would it be better to elminate the focus on "money" and have airlines arbitrarily price discriminate? Free enterprise is the reason why just about anyone in modern society can readily afford air travel to anywhere in the world.

That's not such a bad thing, Woo.

You know, we will see changes when and if the day arrives when the size of the seat begins to keep people from flying. And, even then, this lower volume has to be compared to the cost of renovating the present fleet to larger seats, the labor cost, along with the lost revenue while the fleet is grounded for this renevation, compared to sustaining on lowered revenue (some people will always fly with the present seating arrangement) waiting for the next fleet upgrade ordering new planes with larger seats.

To me, the issue isn't as simple as, "just make the seats larger, and stop being so greedy."

[Bexicon]

Ah, fatty: you make such a convenient scapegoat, because the brainwashed american slave has been trained to hate and/or fear nothing more than the threat spiritual obesity. Once again, the moral decay of fat is causing yet more problems... seeping in, not unlike the extra flesh of an obese passenger cramped next to us. (Stop stealing MY seat! Pay for two! Fair is fair! The problem isn't the cheapo seats, it's the fat all around us, dirtying us, taking too much and producing too little!) That's poetic, but you may speak for yourself. I don't care whether the person flowing into my seat across the armrest is obese, Mr Olympia, or an eight-armed mutant. I am sure I will hear all about the various predjudices and conspiracies against them while they squash me.

People either fit in their seats -- or are too big to keep their body in their own seat. If you're too big, you're creeping into the seat beside you.

In the original post, the airline says that people who are too big must buy two seats. If the flight is not full they may request a refund for the additional seat afterwards.

So the only time obese people will need to pay for two seats is when they are inconveniencing the other paying passengers.This is probably an outrage to anyone who thinks the world revolves around them.

Making all the seats bigger would only benefit the too-big people who would otherwise need to pay for two, while raising the ticket price for everyone, including those people who already fit in their seats. And I bet I would still hear about how everybody picks on them.

Yep, they pretty much got all their bases covered on this one. If you want to sully a thing, or idea, or cause, or product...associate it with fatness. Industry never tires of exploiting obese prejudice to their advantage. Sometimes I am ashamed to be human.

Or, if you want to fly and don't fit in your seat, buy two. Be ashamed of whatever you want. Cheers.

[gryfonclaw]

Someone please correct me if this has been posted before, but it is my understanding that it costs more in fuel to move an obese person than a normal weight person, and therefore, the airline has to require that the obese person purchase an extra seat. :q:

[ItsTheWooo]

In a free enterprise system, a for profit business operates in an arena where other companies are aggressively competing for the same business. As a result, certain measures are taken, such as lowering equipment cost, increasing volume, and rescaling production capacity.

Placing as many passengers in a given flight results in higher profits, especially since each flight has a designated fixed cost. It isn't about blaming the obese, but maximizing profit to compete with other companies vying for the same share of the pie.

As a society, we embrace this system since free enterprise drives a company to compete making it's operations more efficient leading to lower prices for each of us. The price we pay for an airline seat is dictated by supply and demand by market forces--nothing more, and nothing less.

So, would it be better to elminate the focus on "money" and have airlines arbitrarily price discriminate? Free enterprise is the reason why just about anyone in modern society can readily afford air travel to anywhere in the world.

That's not such a bad thing, Woo.

You know, we will see changes when and if the day arrives when the size of the seat begins to keep people from flying. And, even then, this lower volume has to be compared to the cost of renovating the present fleet to larger seats, the labor cost, along with the lost revenue while the fleet is grounded for this renevation, compared to sustaining on lowered revenue (some people will always fly with the present seating arrangement) waiting for the next fleet upgrade ordering new planes with larger seats.

To me, the issue isn't as simple as, "just make the seats larger, and stop being so greedy."

You're right, it's not simple... and I am aware competition necessitates this. Still, it doesn't change the fact that this hubbub over fat people on airlines is nothing more than elaborate way of obfuscating the real issue: crappy service. It is no different than how McDonalds formulates drug-food, and then turns around to the sick and addicted masses and preaches the virtue of healthy diet and moderation. As with the airlines, Mcie Ds is just doing what it has to do to make money, sure. It doesn't change the fact they're peddling bull to exonerate themselves of any blame (protecting the brand) and exploiting fear/prejudice against the obese to do it.
I don't like anything that furthers obese prejudice (and that's what this hand wringing about the burden of fatness is... irrational fear and prejudice and ignorance, the threat of moral decay from overconsumption and unproductivity).
As someone who has a high sensitivity to manifest the obesity trait, someone who's felt the blunt of this prejudice, I apologize, but I find it a bit difficult to be objective and say "well, that's the way of the world".

[ItsTheWooo]

I like this idea, actually. There may be some application problems---fat person in question doesn't realize he or she needs to pay more for bigger seat; counter person asks person to pay higher seat price based on eyeballing size of person, etc. But it's a start, maybe.

As for the rest of your statement, I disagree. I really don't think it's about making fat people scapegoats, but rather being fair to customers, all the way around. I think it's important to differentiate between the problem itself and the resulting humiliation/agitation it causes. One flows from the other but they are not the same thing.

Ultimately, if I pay for my seat, I should be able to sit in my seat without having someone else occupy the seat with me. That's just common sense, and doesn't have to be an indictment of anybody or any company.

I agree. I do not think it is fair for people to be cramped on top of each other like animals, and it is unreasonable to ask smaller people to lump it while larger sized people take more than their "fair share" of space.

But, the problem is the cramping, it is not that some people are bigger and some people are smaller. Industry is exploiting our phobia of fat to take focus off the real issue: service is not up to par. I agree you can't blame the companies, they're just doing what they have to do to make a profit and protect themselves. As Frederick pointed out, the constraints of competition make it so that airlines have to cram many, many seats in planes in order to turn a profit and provide economic air travel.


Personally I think the number of people who board planes should be reduced by government law, effectively mitigating the need for airlines to pack people on planes like cattle. Yes, the cost of air travel would increase somewhat, but you get what you pay for. Broccoli costs more than rice, and steak costs more than beans... safer, quality air travel costs more than what we have now. I would rather pay a bit more for better quality.

It is not too much to ask that an airline provide sufficient service at the advertised cost. As it is, they are not doing this, and the nature of the system makes it impossible for them to do so.

[CrysAnne]

As Frederick pointed out, the constraints of competition make it so that airlines have to cram many, many seats in planes in order to turn a profit and provide economic air travel.


That's exactly it; I agree 100% with what Frederick said. Airlines will continue to do this as long as 1) we allow them to do it and 2) it doesn't affect their bottom line. When we stop patronizing these airlines they will feel it in their pocketbooks and that's when they'll make the necessary adjustments, and this goes both for the "fat" and "thin" person in this scenario. If an overweight/obese person for whatever reason feels they are being scapegoated or humiliated when they fly a certain airlines, they should stop patronizing that airline. Likewise, if a more slender person is tired of being crushed when he or she flies, she too should make other arrangements.

When the airlines stop getting the cash, they'll make the changes.

[ItsTheWooo]

That's exactly it; I agree 100% with what Frederick said. Airlines will continue to do this as long as 1) we allow them to do it and 2) it doesn't affect their bottom line. When we stop patronizing these airlines they will feel it in their pocketbooks and that's when they'll make the necessary adjustments, and this goes both for the "fat" and "thin" person in this scenario. If an overweight/obese person for whatever reason feels they are being scapegoated or humiliated when they fly a certain airlines, they should stop patronizing that airline. Likewise, if a more slender person is tired of being crushed when he or she flies, she too should make other arrangements.

When the airlines stop getting the cash, they'll make the changes.
It is an optimistic notion that people will demand service and get it, but it's not reality. People are not rational. They do not consider the logic in the thousands of relationships involved which end at that seat on the plane at the price they are going to pay. All a person knows is "I'm buying the seat, and I expect what I paid for". "Expect what I paid for" is subjectively defined as some vague notion of satisfaction. There is no consideration of whether or not the cost they pay can make it happen.

In an ideal world, people would understand the complexities involved; they would either in mass refuse to patronize the airlines who did not provide the service they expect, or, they would pay more for the special, premium seats. But that's not going to happen. People are going to keep on doing what people do, which is default to paying "the standard fare" and expecting what they envision to be "the standard service". I think most people perceive standard service to at least include a seat spacious enough to relax a little, enough to accomodate the average sized person. Problem is, "standard service" does not match our expectations. Seats do not really fit the average size person well, and they are completely insufficient for anyone slightly larger.

So the problem becomes one of equating our concept of "standard service" with what they're providing. That means "standard fare" has to increase. Now, this isn't going to change by itself (because such an airline would be womped down by complaints of exorbitant cost, because again, people are illogical and do not understand that these costs are necessitated by raising the standards to what we *expect* to pay for).

If we want change, the government has to set some kind of regulation here so that standard service stays standard. Yes costs will go up - but then again, costs are artificially low right now. If we want to actualize our concept of "standard service", we have to pay for it. Or, we can do what we are doing now, which is pay a bit less, cramp people on planes like livestock, and then shirk the blame for this situation on the larger people "taking more than they've paid for".

[CrysAnne]

I hear what you're saying and agree with quite a lot of it, but it's the spirit behind this statement of yours:

Or, we can do what we are doing now, which is pay a bit less, cramp people on planes like livestock, and then shirk the blame for this situation on the larger people "taking more than they've paid for"

...that stumbles me. I just don't feel like anyone is blaming fat people. It feels purely economical to me, and it's a matter of fair's fair. I also don't think we're talking about people who are simply slightly overweight. I'm of average size and hey, when I ride SW airlines I'm not that comfortable. Someone with 20-30 pounds on me would be even more uncomfortable.

But someone who is 3-400+ pounds has got to know getting onto that flight that somebody sitting next to him is going to be inconvenienced by his size. I think that's why people get agitated---because no provision is made on the part of the airline OR the overweight person who knows this will happen, and everyone else seems to have to just suck it up.

I see it from all sides, and like I said somewhere else, it's sad.

[relliott1]

But, the problem is the cramping, it is not that some people are bigger and some people are smaller. Industry is exploiting our phobia of fat to take focus off the real issue: service is not up to par...

I disagree with this. Airlines DO offer larger, more comfortable seating at an increased price. It is called First Class. And historically, most people are not willing to pay the extra money to utilize it. Based on that alone, I don't think the majority of air travellers would be willing to swallow what would ultimately be a very significant price-hike in order to accomodate larger seating throughout the plane. People want inexpensive, convenient travel. I don't think that should mean we have to put up with people encroaching on our space, though.

Robin

[Newbirth]

I wasn't arguing the definition of obesity. I was merely stating it's easier to fly without an extra sixty pounds on my frame. As far as not knowing what it "feels like to be obese" that's irrelevant. Embarrassment is universal.I've lost 60 pounds and 11 inches off my hips. Those airline seats were a tight fit before. Now they are comfortable (as comfortable as an airline seat can be).

I can now look forward to my flight to New York in 10 days. :) I was obese and my BMI was 32.3. It's now 22.6. :)

[Frederick]

If we want change, the government has to set some kind of regulation here so that standard service stays standard. Yes costs will go up - but then again, costs are artificially low right now.

No, it's not.

The price is exactly where it should be as mandated by the laws of supply and demand. If the airline industry were a monopoly or an oligopoly, then government intervention would be necessary to keep companies from practicing collusion and inefficiant pricing. Having many firms in an industry eventually creates a perfectly competitive environment where no supplier or consumer has control over market prices.

This is where the cost of a certain good is priced exactly as it should given the balance of supply and demand. The Airline industry has no pricing power given how competitive the industry has become in our modern era. The price you pay for a ticket is exactly what you should pay--it is most assuredly *not* artificially low.

In contrast, utilities have a virtual monopoly in the areas they serve, which is why government intervention is necessary. Free enterprise breaks down when a demand for a good or service is inelastic. That is the only reason for government intervention. The Airline industry is as far from this scenario as any industry can possible be.

[Frederick]

...that stumbles me. I just don't feel like anyone is blaming fat people. It feels purely economical to me, and it's a matter of fair's fair.

Me too, I can't see how this could possibly be viewed as a ploy to propagate more obesity prejudice using the fat as an excuse to drive up profitability.

[potatofree]

I've been reading up on flying, since we're about to take our first trip by air... and it says you can buy a seat for bulky things that you don't want checked in baggage, that don't fit the standard for carry-on luggage. I guess my left buttcheek fits that description. :help:

[ItsTheWooo]

When I said the cost is artificially low, I meant that an airline ticket costs what it does because of the cramping and other corner cutting. Yet, the person traveling expects a level of service that can't be delivered at that cost. The tickets are priced reasonably (competition keeps it that way). I meant that what a person expects to pay for the level of service they consider to be "standard" is not balanced.

Anyway.
You're right Fredrick. I mean, you're just right... I have no argument here. There's nothing the government can do, and it shouldn't. I can rant and go on tangents all day but the bottom line is things are as they are and nothing can change what people expect and what they want to pay. Bottom line is, as it is now, very large people needing two seats should buy them. If the only alternative is taking the paid space of another passenger, it wouldn't be reasonable at all.

[NewRuth]

Airlines DO offer larger, more comfortable seating at an increased price. It is called First Class. And historically, most people are not willing to pay the extra money to utilize it. Based on that alone, I don't think the majority of air travellers would be willing to swallow what would ultimately be a very significant price-hike in order to accomodate larger seating throughout the plane. People want inexpensive, convenient travel. I don't think that should mean we have to put up with people encroaching on our space, though.
Ah, but part of the cost of that "inexpensive, convenient travel" IS having to take your chances with a large row mate.

If you want space, get a first class ticket.

To be fair, airlines should charge by the pound for both people AND luggage. Then, they would have no excuse not to provide adequate seating space for large individuals. Everybody happy.

[theladyboo]

:rheart: Words taken from my heart. :rheart:

No, it's not.

The price is exactly where it should be as mandated by the laws of supply and demand. If the airline industry were a monopoly or an oligopoly, then government intervention would be necessary to keep companies from practicing collusion and inefficiant pricing. Having many firms in an industry eventually creates a perfectly competitive environment where no supplier or consumer has control over market prices.

This is where the cost of a certain good is priced exactly as it should given the balance of supply and demand. The Airline industry has no pricing power given how competitive the industry has become in our modern era. The price you pay for a ticket is exactly what you should pay--it is most assuredly *not* artificially low.

In contrast, utilities have a virtual monopoly in the areas they serve, which is why government intervention is necessary. Free enterprise breaks down when a demand for a good or service is inelastic. That is the only reason for government intervention. The Airline industry is as far from this scenario as any industry can possible be.

[HairOnFire]

I've been reading up on flying, since we're about to take our first trip by air... and it says you can buy a seat for bulky things that you don't want checked in baggage, that don't fit the standard for carry-on luggage. I guess my left buttcheek fits that description. :help:

I've never heard of this policy. Strapping stuff into an airline seat? If it doesn't fit under a seat belt, that means there is a risk that it can go flying around inside the cabin under turbulence. I fly pretty frequently, and I've never seen "non-human baggage" allowed to remain in seats during times requiring belts.

Believe it or not, I never really minded the squishing together on airplanes in economy class. Maybe I've just never been seated next to someone extremely obese. It just doesn't bother me, though. Kinda the price you pay (or don't pay, I should say) for buying the cheap seats. My biggest beef is that I always seem to end up on a redeye sitting next to the only guy on the plane who wants to keep his light on and read!! Jeebus. And I'd rather be butted up against somebody in economy who doesn't talk to me than sitting next to the skinny non-stop yakker who needs to tell me his life story before the drink cart even arrives. :lol:

[theladyboo]

It costs a certain amount of money to fly. The heavier the load, the more fuel is needed.

If people do not like the policy of the airline then take a different airline. It will be SouthWest's loss.

The worst thing you can do is get the government involved. Talk about rising costs and annoying policy!

[nets33]

To be fair, airlines should charge by the pound for both people AND luggage. Then, they would have no excuse not to provide adequate seating space for large individuals. Everybody happy.I think that this would then be peanalizing people in a different way... At 5'10" and 190 or so pounds I easily fit into an airline seat. Why should I have to pay more than a person sitting next to me that is 5'2" and 120 if we both fit into the seat comfortably? I would be very angry to know that someone who is 70 lbs lighter than me was able to get a ticket cheaper.

OTOH... airlines charge different prices for the same flights all the time. Why is it cheaper to buy an airline ticket two months prior and yet the same fare can cost 5x as much if you buy it two days before the flight? I can't think of another industry that is able to get away with this type of pricing.

There really isn't an easy answer to this question....

[theladyboo]

OTOH... airlines charge different prices for the same flights all the time. Why is it cheaper to buy an airline ticket two months prior and yet the same fare can cost 5x as much if you buy it two days before the flight? I can't think of another industry that is able to get away with this type of pricing.

There are a lot of concerts and conventions that increase their prices. I'm not sure I've ever seen one quintuple the amount, but I've seen quadruples.

[Bexicon]

Ah, but part of the cost of that "inexpensive, convenient travel" IS having to take your chances with a large row mate.Not anymore. That's the point of the new regulation.

Now if they just ask that babies be kept in soundproof containers I'll be a happy flyer.

[AmoryBlain]

Originally posted by Bexicon
Now if they just ask that babies be kept in soundproof containers I'll be a happy flyer.

HAHAHAHA! Oh my, on my 3.5 hour flights from Pittsburgh to Denver how I WISH airlines had this type of policy. I know babies can't help it because their ears pop and whatnot, but it's absolutely harrowing to fly at 11pm for 3.5 hours and have a toddler wailing bloody murder the entire time. I once joked there should be a mandatory sedation for children under three on flights. I was on an Express Jet from Denver to Houston in April--it was an American Eagle express flight that only had sixty seats. VERY TINY. The woman with a screaming baby behind me changed her child's poopy diaper RIGHT in the fuselage. Didn't go to the lavatory, nothing. It reeked for the next 1.5 hours and EVERYONE was miserable. Even the flight attendants were annoyed, and most of the passengers did NOTHING to mask their antipathy towards the woman. It didn't help that she operated by the "let him cry" policy when he started fussing. I would've jumped out of the plane if I had a parachute.

No one will ever fly completely happy. Actually, scratch that. I'm always completely happy when I fly business class, but those seats get snapped up like hushpuppies no matter how early one books their flight. I don't mind paying extra for that comfort on long flights, but BECAUSE people are so miserable all of the time, those seats are hard to find.

[Paleoanth]

I was going to comment, but Fredrick pretty much expressed what I would have said.

However, Woo, I do not agree that people are not rational. Thinking people are too stupid to make their own decisions is what leads to even more government regulation.

[kyrasdad]

The woman with a screaming baby behind me changed her child's poopy diaper RIGHT in the fuselage. Didn't go to the lavatory, nothing. It reeked for the next 1.5 hours and EVERYONE was miserable. Even the flight attendants were annoyed, and most of the passengers did NOTHING to mask their antipathy towards the woman. It didn't help that she operated by the "let him cry" policy when he started fussing.

If you haven't had a baby, you probably can't know that they will cry when they want to, and there isn't any real way to stop them - especially in an unfamiliar and cramped situation. If the baby is young enough to have diapers, and it was upset, it's going to cry and the parent can't do a thing about it.

However, changing that diaper in her seat was disgusting and unforgivable.

[AmoryBlain]

Kyrasdad--I know babies will cry; that is a fact of life and has to be tolerated. It was the diaper incident that got me!

[potatofree]

Being understandable doesn't make it a whole lot less grating to hear it for hours on end. I'd feel sorry for the parents, but after about an hour, my nerves would be shot.

[Hismouse]

I once was on a flight to San Jose, I was supposed to sit in the middle seat, a man very tall and very big need to sit by the window. Didn't work, so I moved to the window seat, him next to me and a traveling fire fighter, being me, I know inside all of us is feeling so I sat tight and we all talked. The flight was really shaking and the big guy said to me don't be scared I'm a privite plane pilot. he talked to me and I calmed down, and I was at that time getting into Suzanne Somers woe, and I was reading and the big guy said tell me about the book, so we talked for two hrs. about diets for health. We left the plane, himsaying he had a new found reason for starting her woe and I for the first time flying was never cold,(don't ya all get cold on flights.) and we all need to stop judging people for the size and look deeper.